Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the four appellants for the offence of gang rape punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing each to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellants were acquitted of charges under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution was that on the night of 04.05.1996, the prosecutrix 'R', a married woman staying with her father and brother, was forcibly taken in an autorickshaw by the four accused, who were known to her. She was taken to an agricultural field under a mango tree, where all four accused committed rape on her without her consent. She was threatened with death if she disclosed the incident. After the assault, the accused left her near the village, and she immediately went to the house of Sukhdeo Raut, in whose field she worked, and narrated the incident. On Sukhdeo Raut's advice, the FIR was lodged the next day at about 1:40 p.m. at the Morshi Police Station, approximately thirteen kilometers away. The medical examination of the prosecutrix indicated no external injuries on her private parts but noted pain and abrasions on the thigh; the doctor opined that as she was habituated to sexual intercourse, no definite conclusion could be drawn. The Chemical Analyzer's report revealed semen stains on the seized saree, with blood groups 'A', 'B' and 'O', which matched the blood groups of the accused — accused no.1 had 'O', accused no.3 had 'A', and accused nos.2 and 4 had 'B'. The prosecutrix's blood group was 'O'. The trial court found the prosecution evidence credible and convicted the accused. In appeal, the appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient, highlighting the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix, the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged enmity between the accused and Sukhdeo Raut leading to false implication, and the prosecutrix's failure to raise an alarm. They relied on certain authorities. The State defended the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecutrix had no motive to falsely implicate, that the delay was adequately explained, and that the forensic evidence provided strong corroboration. The High Court, after examining the testimonies, dismissed the appeal. It held that the prosecutrix's testimony was clear and consistent regarding the forcible act and lack of consent, and the suggestion put to her in cross-examination that the accused had forcibly pulled her towards the spot further supported the prosecution case. The Court observed that a victim of sexual assault is to be treated as an injured witness, and her testimony, if found credible, can form the sole basis for conviction. Relying on Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445, it held that the absence of injuries is not fatal, particularly when the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse. The delay in lodging the FIR was held to be satisfactorily explained given the time and distance, and the priority given to safety by first informing the employer and then filing the report the next morning. The most compelling circumstance was the Chemical Analyzer's report, which demonstrated that the semen stains on the prosecutrix's saree corresponded to the blood groups of the accused. This tangible scientific evidence, which was put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC and merely denied by them, established a clear nexus. The defence of false implication at the instance of Sukhdeo Raut was rejected as the suggestions were denied and not substantiated. The Court applied the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding absence of consent in gang rape. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Evaluation of Victim's Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(g), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114A - The prosecutrix testified that she was forcibly taken and raped by all four accused. Her testimony was consistent, and cross-examination suggested forcible pulling. The court found her evidence reliable and noted that her testimony as an injured witness did not require corroboration. Held that conviction can be based solely on her credible evidence (Paras 5, 8). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Absence of Injuries - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(g) - Medical examination showed no external injuries on private parts but pain and abrasions on thigh. Court relied on Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445 to hold that absence of injuries does not negate rape when the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse. The trial court's finding that the offence occurred was upheld (Para 8). C) Criminal Law - Rape - Delay in Filing FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374 - Incident occurred at 9 p.m., FIR lodged next day at 1.40 p.m., after 13 km journey to police station. The disclosure to Sukhdeo Raut the same night and his advice to report next morning explained the delay. Held that the delay was not unreasonable and did not affect credibility (Para 9). D) Criminal Law - Rape - Corroboration by Forensic Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Chemical analyzer report showed semen stains on prosecutrix's saree with blood groups A, B, and O, matching the blood groups of the accused. This independent evidence strongly corroborated the prosecutrix's account and was put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, which they merely denied. Held that this corroboration strengthened the prosecution case (Paras 10-11). E) Criminal Law - Rape - False Implication - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Defence of enmity was raised, alleging implication at the instance of Sukhdeo Raut. The suggestion was denied, and no evidence supported it. The court found no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix, and the forensic evidence contradicted the defence (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC was justified despite absence of injuries on the prosecutrix, delay in lodging FIR, and alleged inconsistencies.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Law Points
- testimony of prosecutrix can be sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence
- absence of injuries on victim does not automatically discredit rape allegation
- Section 114A Evidence Act raises presumption of non-consent in gang rape
- delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if explained
- corroboration by forensic evidence like blood group matching strengthens prosecution case
