2025 Supreme(SC) 761

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Raju @ Umakant – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2377 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 17398 of 2024)
Decided On : 01-05-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Gang rape – In a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of common intention – Common intention is implicit in charge of Section 376(2)(g) of IPC itself – In view of Section 114A of Evidence Act, there is presumption as to absence of consent in case of gang rape.
(2) Kidnapping, gang rape and wrongful restraint – A woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person’s lust and it will be improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion – Where ocular evidence is clear, it will prevail over medical evidence.
(3) Rape – Inhuman and degrading practice of two-finger test is not to be repeated on victims of sexual assault.
(4) Evidence of prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2) (g) read with Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114A – Gang rape – In a case of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g), an act by one is enough to render all in the gang for punishment as long as they have acted in furtherance of common intention – Common intention is implicit in charge of Section 376(2)(g) itself and all that is needed is evidence to show existence of common intention – In view of Section 114A of Evidence Act, there is presumption as to absence of consent in case of gang rape and it will be presumed that prosecutrix did not give consent as long as prosecutrix states in evidence before Court that she did not consent. (Paras 23 and 25)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366, 376(2) (g) and 342 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114A – Kidnapping, gang rape and wrongful restraint – Conviction and sentence – Notwithstanding minor contradictions, evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence and that she has clearly spoken about accused abducting her and also committing rape on her – She has also clearly spoken about wrongful confinement – A woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person’s lust and it will be improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion – All that law mandates is that Court should be alive to and conscious of fact that it is dealing with evidence of a person who is interested in outcome of charge levelled by her and if after keeping that aspect in mind if Court is thereafter satisfied that evidence is trustworthy, there is nothing that can stop Court from acting on sole testimony of prosecutrix – There is clear evidence on aspect of recovery from confinement made by accused of prosecutrix – Ingredients of Section 376(2)(g) are squarely attracted – Prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse against her consent – There is evidence to show that she is acquainted with appellant and defence witnesses have been put up only to present a false narrative – Where ocular evidence is clear, it will prevail over medical evidence – Inhuman and degrading practice of two-finger test is not to be repeated on victims of sexual assault. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29)

(C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366, 376(2) (g) and 342 – Kidnapping, gang rape and wrongful restraint – Conviction and sentence – There is no evidence whatsoever to establish the fact that victim’s caste identity was one of grounds for occurrence of offence – In absence of any evidence attracting offence of Section 3(2)(v), Court is constrained to record acquittal for appellant from charge of Section 3(2)(v) of 1989 Act – While maintaining conviction of appellant under Sections 366, 342 and 376(2)(g) of IPC, conviction of appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of 1989 Act set aside – Sentences modified. (Paras 44 and 45)

(D) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him – Evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off record altogether but same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof – Where evidence of such a witness is consistent with case of prosecution, it can be relied upon. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:

Appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2) (g) and 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, appellant has been sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/ and, in default of fine, to undergo a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. For offences punishable under 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of 1989 Act, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. For offence under Section 342 IPC, appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ and, in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

Findings of Court:

Sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant modified to that of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/ with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year in case of non-payment of fine. All sentences to run concurrently. Accused, who is in custody shall serve out remaining sentence, as directed.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.