SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1091

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Manak Chand @ Mani – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr.Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. Mohit Raj, Adv. Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  • Evidence of the Prosecutrix: In a rape case, the evidence of the prosecutrix is of the same value as that of an injured witness, and a conviction can be made on the basis of her sole testimony if it inspires confidence; however, if her statement creates doubt, corroborative evidence is required (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • Age Determination Failure: The Trial Court and High Court failed to properly examine the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, which is a crucial factor under Section 375 IPC; the prosecution relied on a school register entry (04.04.1987) without producing the underlying transfer certificate or examining the person who made the entry, rendering the evidence insufficient (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • Medical Evidence Discrepancies: The medical report indicated the prosecutrix was a "well-built adult female" with fully developed secondary sex characteristics and no external marks of injury, contradicting the claim that she was a minor; furthermore, a Bone Ossification Test was not conducted to scientifically determine her age (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case: The prosecutrix allegedly attended school on the date of the alleged rape but was claimed to be at the accused's house at the same time; the FIR was filed only after a marriage proposal was turned down, casting doubt on the spontaneity and credibility of the rape allegation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  • Consent and Acquittal: The prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, and there is no evidence suggesting the sexual act was against her will or without consent, leading to the appellant's acquittal under Section 376 IPC (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The appellant before this Court has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced for seven years of R.I. and Rs. 1000/- as fine, with default stipulations. The order of the Trial Court dated 03.09.2001 has been upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as per judgment dated 19.02.2014 in appeal.

2. A First Information Report was lodged on 23.10.2000 by Gian Chand (complainant), who is the father-in-law of appellant’s elder brother Pappu. It states that on 02.09.2000, Pappu requested the complainant to send his younger daughter (who is the present prosecutrix), to his house for taking care of her sister, who had just given birth to a girl child. It is alleged that the prosecutrix at the relevant time was 15 years of age. The prosecutrix was sent by her father to live for some time at her sister’s matrimonial house. More than a month later, the prosecutrix returned to her house, tells her mother that while she was in the house of her sister, the present appellant Manak Chand @ Mani who is the younger brother of Pappu, raped her and thereafter repeated the same offence two to th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top