The court affirmed that consent is irrelevant in statutory rape cases involving minors, emphasizing the victim's age and circumstances of captivity.

ORDER :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The instant appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants against the common judgment dated 15.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1850 of 2010 and other connected matters wherein the High Court had dismissed the appellants’ appeals and affirmed the conviction and sentences for the offences under Section 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code,1860¹[IPC].

2. The appeals arise from a common set of facts and interlinked offences which have been briefly stated below. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix, who at the relevant point of time was an unmarried girl aged about 17 years, and was residing with her paternal aunt named Premwati since childhood in village Chowka Sonvarsha. Indrapal (Accused No. 2, i.e. “A2”) was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dhoraha whereas Sheshmani (Accused No. 1, i.e. “A1”) was the husband of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chowka Sonvarsh. Houses belonging to A1 Sheshmani and Premwati were located in the same neighbourhood.

3. It was alleged that around 4th/5th June, 2005, A1 Sheshmani assured the prosecutrix, who by then had studied upto Class X, of securing her employment in near future. Nearly 25 days later, A2 Indrapal and Surendra (Accused No. 5, i.e. “A5”) and two unknown persons who were introduced as brothers-in-law of A5 Surendra came to the house of the prosecutrix and she was told that A5 Surendra is a resident of Sidhi and posted at Bhopal, and will be able to secure a job for the prosecutrix.

4. Thereafter, on 06.07.2005 at around 12 noon, A1 Sheshmani visited the house of Premwati and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to Rewa where she has been called in by A2 Indrapal and A5 Surendra for the purpose of providing employment. When the prosecutrix wished to seek permission from Premwati, A1 Sheshmani insisted on not informing Premwati who was asleep at that time. As such, A1 Sheshmani took the prosecutrix to a house located near LPG godown in Rewa where A2 Indrapal and Raju (Accused No. 3, i.e. “A3”) were already present. After a while, A5 Surendra also came there and all the three accused persons, i.e. A2, A3 and A5 committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she was made to stay at that house till 10.07.2005 where she was repeatedly subjected to gang rape at the hands of the appellants.

5. Subsequently, on 10.07.2005, the prosecutrix was taken by A2 Indrapal and A3 Raju to Sidhi where Suresh (Accused No. 4, i.e. “A4”) was telephoned, post which he also came there and took the prosecutrix to Prince Hotel where she was again subjected to rape. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the house of one Kalli @ Kalawati with whom she was made to reside till 14.07.2005.

6. Then on 15.07.2005, the prosecutrix was brought back to the house occupied by A2 Indrapal at Rewa where he and A3 Raju again committed gang rape on her. On the same day, they took her to Malhar wherefrom they boarded a train. There was a woman in the same train who was previously known to A2 Indrapal and A3 Raju and the prosecutrix was handed over to the said woman for being taken to A5 Surendra’s place at Bhopal. However, the woman took the prosecutrix to an unknown destination near Delhi where she was made to reside with the said woman in a house till 10.09.2005. In the intervening period, A2 Indrapal and A3 Raju frequently visited that house and subjected the prosecutrix to rape repeatedly.

7. It was only on 08.09.2005 that A2 Indrapal informed the prosecutrix about a report alleging his involvement in her kidnapping, post-which the woman deputed a boy to render assistance to the prosecutrix for boarding a train to Allahabad. The prosecutrix reached Allahabad on 11.09.2005 and from there, she straightaway proceeded to the Police Station at Laur, where upon an application made by Premwati, a case of missing person had already been registered. Further, in light of the statement of the prosecutrix, the SHO of P.S. Laur, district Rewa registered a