1999 Supreme(Raj) 1058
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Madan, J.
Raju - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 148 of 1999.
Decided On : 5-04-1999
For the Appellant:Mr. Sanjay Singhmar for Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Satish Purohit, PP.
A minor is incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse and therefore any sexual intercourse with a minor is considered to be rape.
Headnote:
RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - AGE OF PROSECUTRIX - MEDICAL OPINION - CONSENT - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sexually assaulting an 8-9 year old girl. The prosecution's case was that the victim was grazing cattle in a jungle when the appellant took her into a field and raped her. Two witnesses testified to seeing the appellant fleeing the scene and the victim's clothes were found to be smeared with blood.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's testimony was corroborated by the independent and reliable testimony of two witnesses who saw the appellant fleeing the scene. The court also relied on the medical evidence, which showed that the victim had visible injuries consistent with sexual assault. The court rejected the appellant's defense that the victim had consented to the sexual intercourse, finding that she was a minor and therefore incapable of giving consent.
Issues: 1. Whether the victim's testimony was sufficiently corroborated to support a conviction for rape. 2. Whether the victim's age rendered her incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the victim's testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the independent and reliable testimony of two witnesses who saw the appellant fleeing the scene. The court found that the witnesses' testimony was consistent with the victim's account of the events and that there was no reason to doubt their credibility. 2. The court held that the victim's age rendered her incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse. The court noted that the victim was a minor and that the law presumes that minors are incapable of giving consent to sexual intercourse.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction for rape.
JUDGMENT
1. - The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30.1.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 62/98 whereby, the appellant was convicted to undergo 10 years R.I. with a fine of र 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months was awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in short is that one Ram Prasad son of Devu, by caste Mali, resident of Bhamdoli lodged a written report vide Ex.P-1 at Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur alleging that his daughter Kanchan (prosecutrix) aged about 8-9 years on 7.11.1992 had gone to jungle to graze cattle when, at about 3-4 P.M. accused-appellant Raju came there and raped her. On cries being raised by the prosecutrix two witnesses namely; Kajod (PW8) and Jagram (PW3) came to the spot and found the said minor girl profusely bleeding. In the meantime, accused Raju had already fled from the place of occurrence. These two witnesses brought the minor girl Kanchan to her home. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by Ram Prasad, father of the prosecutrix-Kanchan, an FIR was registered with P.S. Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur vide FIR No. 194/92 (Ex.P-10) for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC. Police started investigation and during the course of investigation, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its' case examined PW1 Kanchan, PW2 Ram Prasad, PW3 Jagram, PW4 Ram Kishore, PW5 Dr. Pritam Chand Gupta, PW6 Dr. Hukam Sain Meena, PW7 Subhash Chand, PW8 Kajod, PW9 Urmila Dwivedi and PW10 Amar Singh and also relied upon the documents vide Ex.P1 to Ex. P13.
3. The statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313, G.P.C. Though, the accused denied the prosecution story but did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal.
4. In her statement made before the Court, the prosecutrix has specifically deposed that on the day of occurrence i.e. 7.11.1992 when she had gone to jungle to graze the cattle then, at about 3-4 P.M. Raju, the accused whom the prosecutrix identified in Court, came to the field and forcibly took her away into the crops standing in the fields and committed sexual intercourse against her wishes, as a result of which, she started profusely bleeding from her private parts. She further deposed that on her hues and cries two witnesses namely Jagram (PW3) and Kajod (PW8) came to the spot for her rescue but, in the meantime the accused had already fled from the spot. Both the witnesses took her to the hospital where she was medically examined. The report regarding this incident was lodged by her father Ram Prasad with P.S. Bonli, Sawai Madhopur vide Ex.P-1. Prosecutrix in her statement has further confirmed injury marks on her person caused by the accused-appellant. The police had effected seizure of her clothes which smeared with blood stains and had also prepared a site plan vide Ex.P-2.
5. The above statement of the prosexutrix is fully corroborated by the statement of PW3 Jagram son of Kaluram who has specifically deposed in his statement made before the trial Court that on the date of occurrence at about 3-4 P.M. he was working in his fields when, he heard the cries of the prosecutrix. Upon hearing the hues and cries of the prosecutrix, he alongwith Kajod (PW8) rushed to the fields of one Nanu Singh where they had seen accused-Raju committing rape on the person of Kumari Kanchan- prosecutrix. By seeing Jagram (PW3) and Kajod (PW8), accused-Raju had immediately fled from the place of occurrence. Both the witnesses who are independent and reliable witnesses had come to the rescue of the victim-Kumari Kanchan who had categorically stated in their statement that they had seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence and they had also deposed regarding the act of sexual intercourse having been committed on the person of Kumari Kanch
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
