3Children’s Court Cannot Abdicate Its Duty of Independent Assessment: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Conviction of Juvenile Tried as Adult Without Proper Procedure Delay in Raising Industrial Dispute Is Fatal Unless Explained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Substitutes Reinstatement with Compensation in 19-Year-Old Termination Case Common Intention Cannot Be Presumed from Vague Allegations: Allahabad High Court Affirms Acquittal in 1984 Attempt to Murder Case After 37 Years Criminal Law is Not a Tool to Penalize Business Losses After Full Repayment and No Dues Certificate: Supreme Court Quashes Charges in Bank Fraud Case Demand, Acceptance, and Trap Proven — Bribe Taker Cannot Take Shelter Behind Technical Doubts: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Karnataka Revenue Official Presence, Provocation, and Political Power — Exhortation to Kill Makes You Liable Even Without Lifting a Weapon: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Political Leader Who Instigated Fatal Mob Attack You Sat on Development for a Decade — You Can’t Block Public Redevelopment with Unenforced Private Agreements: Supreme Court Dismisses Builder's Challenge to MHADA E-Tender No Collision? Then Why Did You Flee? — Supreme Court Rejects Truck Driver’s Defence, Upholds Full Liability on Insurer Principles of Natural Justice Are Not Optional Rituals—Layout Plans Affecting Public Rights Must Invite Public Objections: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes HSVP’s Replanning Rape in the Shadows of Trust, Not Custody: Sikkim High Court Upholds Conviction, Rejects State’s Bid to Enhance Sentence for Lack of Proof of ‘Public Servant’ Status Retesting Under NDPS Act Is Not a Matter of Right — It’s a Matter of Rare Necessity: Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR After Clean FSL Report Approval Can Be Post-Facto—Refusal Based on Absence of Prior Nod Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Reinstates Home Guard Selection List “Murdered His Wife, Parents, and Son — But Was He Sane When He Did It?” Madhya Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Family Massacre Litigants Can’t Sleep on Their Rights, Then Wake Up Blaming the Lawyer: Delhi High Court Refuses Recall of Witness After Trial Closure in Cheque Bounce Case Will Mentions Land Not Yet Purchased? That Itself Casts a Dark Shadow on Its Validity: Bombay High Court Dismisses Probate Claim Over Muslim Testator’s Estate Ownership By Purchase From One Co-Owner Doesn’t End Tenancy With Other: Allahabad High Court Upholds Eviction Over Partitioned Share

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 News