Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line

Absence Of Corroborative Injuries On Prosecutrix Not Grounds For Inferring Consent: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction And Lenient Sentencing In Gang Rape Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to convict the accused for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, despite the absence of corroborative injuries on the prosecutrix, stating that lack of physical injuries does not imply consent. The court also upheld the High Court’s discretion to impose a lenient sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment due to the considerable passage of time and the accused's age and family responsibilities.

Facts and Issues: The case involved appeals arising from the conviction of Raghubir Singh and others for gang rape. Initially, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of corroborative evidence and potential consensual sexual intercourse. The High Court, upon appeal, ordered a retrial, resulting in the conviction of the accused based on the prosecutrix’s consistent testimony and lack of consent.

Court's Assessment: Prosecutrix's Testimony: The High Court found the prosecutrix's testimony credible and consistent. Despite no physical injuries, her account of forced sexual intercourse by multiple accused was deemed reliable.

Supreme Court emphasized, "The absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is by itself no ground to infer consent on the part of the prosecutrix."

The defense claimed consensual sexual intercourse and a history of the prosecutrix charging money for sexual relations. However, this was not corroborated during cross-examination.

Supreme Court noted, "The case made out by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC was not put to the prosecutrix."

High Court's Judgment: The High Court, on evaluating the evidence, concluded the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court upheld, "The High Court's conclusion was the only possible conclusion based on the evidence on record."

Sentencing Leniency: The High Court imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment, less than the statutory minimum of ten years, considering the incident occurred in 1989, the accused's ages, and their family responsibilities.

Supreme Court upheld, "There were adequate reasons which warranted the exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC as it existed before the 2013 amendment."

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the High Court's judgment and sentencing. Vijay Kumar, who was on bail, was granted one month to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2024

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.

Latest Legal News