Back
2001 Supreme(Raj) 488
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Dhruvendra Singh - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1999
Decided On : 04/30/2001
Mr. Ramesh Purohit, Public Prosecutor for the State Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia and Mr. S.S. Dhillon, Advocates for accused Mr. R.R. Vyas, Mr. D.S. Shishodia, Mr. M. Shishodia, Mr. M.K. Garg, Mr. N.L. Joshi and Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocates for Complainant
The age of the prosecutrix is crucial in determining consent in rape cases. Birth or school certificates are the best evidence for age determination, and medical evidence is considered only when primary evidence is unavailable.
Headnote:
Rape - Age Determination - IPC 363, 366, 342, 376 - SC/ST Act - 3(2)(v) - [363, 366, 342, 376, 376(2)(g), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act] - The court acquitted some accused and convicted others for the offence of rape. The court determined the age of the prosecutrix based on school certificates and medical evidence. The court held that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, making her consent immaterial. The court emphasized the importance of birth or school certificates for age determination and accepted the prosecutrix's testimony as trustworthy and reliable.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a minor, was allegedly raped by multiple accused over a period of time. The prosecutrix and her father lodged a report, and the accused were charged under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The court acquitted some accused and convicted others based on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and age determination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, making her consent immaterial. The court accepted the prosecutrix's testimony as trustworthy and reliable, and emphasized the importance of birth or school certificates for age determination.
Issues: Age determination, consent, reliability of prosecutrix's testimony, corroboration
Ratio Decidendi: The age of the prosecutrix was determined based on school certificates and medical evidence. The court held that if a girl is under sixteen years of age, her consent is immaterial. The court accepted the prosecutrix's testimony as trustworthy and reliable, emphasizing the importance of birth or school certificates for age determination.
Final Decision: The court acquitted some accused and convicted others based on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and age determination.
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-The above appeals being No. 136/99, 133/99 & 169/99 and the State appeal No. 326/99 are being decided by this common Judgment as they all have been preferred against the Judgment dated 8.2.1999 and order of sentence dated 9.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC /ST Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 8/98.
2. By the said Judgment dated 8.2.1999, the learned Special Judge acquitted accused respondents Hanuman Prasad and Parmanand of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342 and 376 (2)(g) IPC; accused respondents Jethu Singh of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’); accused respondent Sanjay Kumar of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342,376(2)(g), 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC /ST Act; and accused respondent Gaurav Kumar Ganga of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 (2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC /ST Act. By the said Judgment dated 8.2.1999, the learned Special Judge also acquitted accused appellant Dhruvendra Singh in appeal No. 136/99 of the charges for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g), 376(2)(g), 376 IPC, for the incident which occurred on 26.1997, but convicted this accused appellant Dhruvendra Singh of the charges for the offence under Section 363, 366, 342, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST. Act and sentenced him for the said offences vide order of sentence dated 9.2.1999 in the following manner: Name of accused appellant Convicted under Section Sentence awarded
363 IPC 366 IPC 342 IPC 376 IPC 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
Dhruvendra SinghTwo years RI and to pay fine of Rs 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one months. Three years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one months. One yea RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Ten years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 10000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Six months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. All the above substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently. By the same Judgment , the learned Special Judge also acquitted the accused appellant Sushil Kumar in appeal No. 133/99 of the charges for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g), 376(2)(g) IPC, but convicted this accused appellant Sushil Kumar of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)
(v) of the SC /ST Act and sentenced him for the said offences vide order of sentence dated 9.2.1999 in the following manner:-Name of accused appellant Convicted under Section Sentence awarded
363 IPC 366 IPC 342 IPC 376 IPC 3(2)(v) of SC/ST ActSushil KumarTwo years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one months. Three years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one months. One yea RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Seven years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 10000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Six months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. All the above substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently. By the same Judgment , the learned Special Judge also acquitted the accused appellant Shiv Muni in appeal No. 169/99 of the charges for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g), 376(2)(g) IPC, but convicted this accused appellant Shiv Muni of the charges for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 342,
