Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by two appellants convicted of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident occurred on 23rd July 1983, when the prosecutrix, accompanied by her sister-in-law, was waylaid by the appellants who threatened them with a pistol. The prosecutrix was forcibly taken to a maize field where she was raped by both appellants. The FIR was lodged the following day, and the trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to four years in prison. The High Court dismissed their appeal, leading to the current Supreme Court appeal. The appellants argued that the FIR was delayed without valid reasons, that no injuries were found on the victim, and that there was enmity between the families leading to false accusations. The Supreme Court found the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her witnesses to be consistent and credible, dismissing the appeal. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonable given the circumstances and that the absence of physical injuries did not negate the occurrence of rape. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence, ordering the appellants to surrender to serve the remainder of their sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Reasonable Explanation - Delay in lodging FIR was found to be properly explained by both courts below. The court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the victim in coming forward to report the crime, thus upholding the delay as not inordinate or unexplained. Held that the reasons for delay were plausible (Paras 14-14). B) Criminal Law - Evidence Consistency - Testimony of witnesses - The testimonies of the prosecutrix and her witnesses were found to be consistent and credible despite the time elapsed since the incident. The court emphasized the importance of the witnesses' consistent accounts in affirming the conviction (Paras 12-13). C) Criminal Law - Definition of Rape - Absence of Physical Injuries - The court noted that the absence of external or internal injuries on the prosecutrix did not negate the occurrence of rape, especially considering her marital status. The court held that such injuries are not a prerequisite for establishing the crime of rape (Paras 15-15). D) Criminal Law - Consent - Plea of Consensual Sex - The appellants' defense of consensual sex was rejected by both lower courts. The court found no merit in the argument, affirming that the evidence supported the prosecution's case of rape (Paras 16-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC should be upheld.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of four years for each appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. The court ordered the appellants to surrender to their bail bonds within seven days to serve the remaining part of their sentence.
Law Points
- Delay in FIR
- Evidence consistency
- Rape definition
- Consent in sexual assault
- Credibility of witnesses
