Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1091

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Manak Chand @ Mani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2276 of 2014
Decided On : 30-10-2023

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.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix in a case of rape is of same value as that of an injured witness – Conviction can be made on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix – Age of prosecutrix has an extremely crucial bearing in the case.
(2) In our adversarial system of criminal jurisprudence, guiding principle shall always be Blackstone ratio which holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix in a case of rape is of same value as that of an injured witness – Conviction can be made on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix – All the same, when conviction can be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix, courts also have to be extremely careful while examining this sole testimony – Both prosecutrix as well as accused have right for fair trial – When statement of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and creates doubt, court must look for corroborative evidence. (Para 5)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Rape – Conviction and sentence – Minor victim – Evidence as to age or even rape has not been examined properly by Trial Court as well as High Court – Courts must examine each evidence with open mind dispassionately as an accused is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty – In our adversarial system of criminal jurisprudence, guiding principle shall always be Blackstone ratio which holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished – Age of prosecutrix has an extremely crucial bearing in the case – Transfer certificate on the basis of which date of birth was recorded, was never produced in Court – Proof submitted by prosecution with regard to age of prosecutrix in form of school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age – It was neither safe nor fair to convict accused, particularly when age of prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case – Prosecution should have done a Bone Ossification Test for determination of age of prosecutrix – There were no external marks of injury – Prosecution has not successfully proved that prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of alleged commission of the crime – Case does not meet ingredients of Rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC – Appellant acquitted of charges of Section 376 IPC. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced for seven years of R.I. and Rs.1000/- as fine, with default stipulations. Order of Trial Court dated 03.09.2001 has been upheld by High Court of Punjab and Haryana as per Judgment dated 19.02.2014 in appeal.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of the charges of Section 376 IPC. Appellant, who is on bail, need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.

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 three times. Initially, considering the relations between the families, the matter was being “settled” and the two families had even agreed for the marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant Manak Chand @ Mani. But it is alleged that the family of the appellant later turned down the offer on 23.10.2000, which led to the lodging of an FIR at Police Station City Dabwali under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of IPC. This in short is the case of the prosecution.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 02.11.2000 and the matter was committed to sessions where charges were framed against the appellant/accused under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses, including PW-5, who was the prosecutrix.

The prosecution’s case is that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident. In order to prove this the prosecution relied upon the date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded as 04.04.1987 in the school register. PW-5 i.e. the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief before the Trial Court on 17.04.2001 states that she had gone to live with her sister, when a request was made by her “Jija” (Brother-in-law) to send her to their house for help. On 12.09.2000, when her sister was away from the house and the prosecutrix was alone, the appellant came to her room and closed the door from inside, showed a knife to her and threatened to kill her if she did not succumb to his carnal desires and then raped her. She further states that after that incident, the appellant committed the same act on the prosecutrix on two or three different occasions. She then returns to her maternal house and tells her mother Sita Devi/Sito Bai about the incident, which is admittedly after more than a month from the incident of rape. Her father Gian Chand (PW-6), also supported her version. He states that on receiving this information he visited the house of his son-in-law Pappu and narrated the entire incident to him, as narrated to him by his daughter. He then gave a proposal before the parents of the appellant for marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant Manak Chand @ Mani, but as no positive reply was given to him, he lodged the FIR on 23.10.2000.

The prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Kulwinder Kaur on 28.10.2000 at 11.30 AM. PW-1 states that the age of the prosecutrix, as told to her by the mother of the prosecutrix, was 16 years and the details of the medical examination of the prosecutrix were as follows:

“GENERAL EXAMINATION: Well-built adult female, fully conscious, moderately nourished. There was no external mark of injury over breast, neck, face, abdomen and thigh.

LOCAL EXAMINATION: She had well-developed public hairs; external genitalia were fully developed & normal. There was no external mark of injury.

PER VAGINAL EXAMINATI