Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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