Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from concurrent findings of the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court convicting the appellant, a truck driver, for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was tried along with co-accused Jabbar, who was acquitted of all charges. The prosecution case was that on 4 June 1982, the prosecutrix Annubai, a minor below 18 years living under the guardianship of her father Dayaram, along with two companions Kamla and Anandi, was waiting for transport at village Satrunda. The appellant, driving truck No.6313 MPU, assured them that the truck was going to Khachrand, and all three ladies sat in the front cabin. After about a kilometer, the appellant stopped the truck claiming the engine had become hot and asked the ladies to fetch water. The prosecutrix, being unwell and not thirsty, stayed in the cabin while the others went to a well. The appellant returned to the cabin and committed rape on the prosecutrix. When Kamla and Anandi returned, the prosecutrix immediately complained, but due to the lonely place they decided to report at Runija. Near Runija railway station, Kamla and Anandi got down, but the appellant pushed the prosecutrix back and drove away. The station master was informed and telephoned the police. Police intercepted the truck at a toll barrier; the prosecutrix was found hidden under the driver's seat. The police seized the prosecutrix's ghagra and the appellant's underwear, which on chemical examination showed semen and spermatozoa. The appellant denied guilt, claiming the prosecutrix was a woman of easy virtue who voluntarily accompanied him to Ujjain and consented to intercourse; he also pointed to the absence of injuries. The trial court, relying on the prosecutrix's age (below 18 as per ossification test and her statement), immediate complaint, forensic evidence, and recovery from under the seat, convicted and sentenced the appellant to three years rigorous imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The High Court affirmed. In the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel reiterated the consent argument and absence of injuries. The Court rejected these contentions, holding that even if the prosecutrix was of easy virtue, she could not be raped; if she had voluntarily agreed, she would not have complained immediately to her companions; and the police did not see her sitting comfortably, but hidden beneath the seat, indicating lack of consent. The Court found the conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC fully justified. The appeal was dismissed, bail bonds cancelled, and the appellant was directed to be taken into custody to serve the sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 375, 376 - The accused's conviction for rape was upheld despite absence of injuries on the prosecutrix and allegation that she was a woman of easy virtue; consent could not be presumed from her previous sexual history or from her voluntary acceptance of a lift. The court held that immediate complaint to companions, forensic evidence of semen and spermatozoa on garments, and recovery of prosecutrix hidden beneath driver's seat established lack of consent. Held that even if prosecutrix was a woman of easy virtue, she could not be raped; conviction under Section 376 IPC justified. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Criminal Law - Abduction - Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366 - The prosecutrix was found to be below 18 years of age, and thus incapable of giving valid consent to leave lawful guardianship; the appellant's act of taking her in truck and preventing her from alighting near Runija railway station amounted to abduction with intent to compel illicit intercourse. The court held that the trial court and High Court correctly appreciated age evidence and the sequence of events to convict under Section 366 IPC. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC was justified given the prosecutrix's age, alleged consent, absence of injuries, and her alleged character as a woman of easy virtue.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC upheld; bail bonds cancelled; appellant to be taken into custody to serve the sentence
Law Points
- Consent cannot be inferred from past sexual history or easy virtue
- Absence of injuries is not fatal to rape conviction when corroborated by immediate complaint and forensic evidence
- Minor prosecutrix below 18 cannot give valid consent for abduction
- Forensic discovery of semen and spermatozoa corroborates sexual intercourse
- Accused's conduct of fleeing and hiding prosecutrix indicates lack of consent
