Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered a criminal appeal by the State of Rajasthan against a High Court judgment that had confirmed the conviction of three respondents but reduced their sentences to the period already undergone. The case arose from an incident on August 14, 1983, when a minor girl aged between 15 and 17 years was enticed by the accused on the pretext of accompanying women to a circus. She was taken at knife point to another village and then to Jaipur, where she was wrongfully confined. The first accused had sexual intercourse with her. The victim was later recovered by police from the house of the first accused after her father lodged a complaint. The Sessions Judge convicted the first accused under Sections 376, 366 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to seven years, five years and one year respectively, with a fine of Rs.200. The second and third accused were convicted under Sections 366 and 342 and sentenced to five years and one year. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences to the period already undergone, about one and a half months, observing that the first accused was 18 years old and that the sentence already undergone was sufficient. The State challenged this reduction. The Supreme Court found that the victim's testimony was truthful and reliable, and since she was a minor, her consent was immaterial. The court rejected the defence argument that the victim was a consenting party and that the one-month delay in lodging the FIR indicated consent. The court held that the High Court committed a grave error of law in reducing the sentence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and sentenced the first accused to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 376 IPC, and all three accused to five years under Section 366 and one year under Section 342 IPC. The first accused was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 to the minor victim, with default rigorous imprisonment for three months. The second and third accused were directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each, with default rigorous imprisonment for one month. All sentences were to run concurrently.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent of Minor - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 - The prosecutrix was aged between 15 and 17 years as per medical evidence, making consent legally irrelevant; the High Court entertained a consent defence which the Supreme Court rejected; Held that since the victim was a minor, the question of consent does not arise and conviction under Section 376 was upheld (Paras 1-3). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Testimony of Prosecutrix - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376 - The court held that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is found intrinsically truthful and inspires confidence, no corroboration is needed; each case must be considered in its own setting; the victim's frankness in attributing sexual intercourse only to the first accused added credibility to her testimony (Paras 1-3). C) Criminal Law - Abduction and Wrongful Confinement - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 361, 364, 366, 342 - The evidence showed that the victim was induced by false representation, taken at knife point to different places, wrongfully confined, and unable to escape; Held that the evidence brought home the guilt of offences under Sections 364, 361 and 342, and all accused were convicted under Sections 366 and 342 (Paras 1-3). D) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Proportionality and Judicial Discretion - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 366, 342 - The High Court reduced the sentence to period already undergone (about one and a half months) despite confirming conviction; Held that the High Court committed a grave error of law; Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and sentenced the first accused to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376, all accused to 5 years under Section 366 and 1 year under Section 342, with fines to be paid to the minor victim (Paras 1-4). E) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 366, 342 - The court rejected the argument that one-month delay in lodging FIR indicated consent; Held that the victim had no opportunity to report as she remained under wrongful confinement and was unable to escape from three accused (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of respondents convicted under Sections 376, 366 and 342 IPC to the period already undergone despite confirming conviction; whether the prosecution evidence proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt including the minor victim's consent and delay in lodging FIR.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside High Court's order reducing sentence. Conviction of first accused under Section 376 IPC upheld and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment; all three accused convicted under Section 366 IPC sentenced to 5 years and under Section 342 IPC to 1 year. First accused additionally fined Rs.2,000/- to be paid to minor victim, in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Second and third accused fined Rs.1,000/- each in addition to Section 366 conviction, in default 1 month rigorous imprisonment. All sentences to run concurrently; fines if paid to victim.
Law Points
- Minor's consent is irrelevant for offence of rape
- testimony of prosecutrix if intrinsically truthful needs no corroboration
- delay in FIR not fatal when victim under continuous wrongful confinement
- sentence must be proportionate to gravity of offence
- High Court erred in reducing sentence to period already undergone.
