Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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