Back
Pynchemalangaki Bareh convicted under despite no charge framed: Supreme Court
The has held that an accused can be convicted under for rape even when no such charge was framed by the trial court, provided the ingredients of the offence are the same as those charged under the and no has occurred. The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered the judgment in an appeal by Pynchemalangaki Bareh against his conviction under the .
The Case and the Age Dispute
The case arose from an incident on , when a 13-year-old girl was allegedly raped at Mokoidaling, Sutnga in Meghalaya. The appellant was charged under and . The trial court convicted him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under and two years under . The upheld the conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the victim’s age was not proved as per . The prosecution had relied on a Baptismal Certificate issued by the and the mother’s testimony, but no school certificate, municipal birth certificate, or was produced. The appellant contended that in light of the judgment in , the POCSO conviction could not stand.
The state, on the other hand, argued that the Baptismal Certificate was reliable and that the medical evidence, including the MLC noting that the victim had not attained menarche, corroborated her minority.
Court’s Analysis on Age Determination
The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme under , which prescribes a hierarchy of documents for age determination: first, a school date of birth certificate or matriculation certificate; in its absence, a birth certificate from a municipal authority or panchayat; and only in the absence of both, a medical . The Court observed that the Baptismal Certificate did not fall under any of these categories and that no was conducted. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s minority .
“The only document available on the record for proving the age of the victim is the Baptismal Certificate issued by the . Although the date of birth in the Baptismal Certificate finds corroboration in the deposition of P.W.-2, the mother of the victim girl, stating the girl was born on , yet since the document itself is not the one prescribed under , we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim in the manner required under ,” the Court held.
Can Conviction Under Be Sustained Without a Charge?
The more significant legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted for rape under when the trial court had framed charges only under the . The Court answered in the affirmative, relying on and the principle of .
The judgment noted that the for under is identical to that of rape under Section 375 IPC. The only distinction is the age of the victim. When the age remains unproved, the POCSO charge fails, but the substantive offence of rape under the IPC stands.
“The only distinguishing feature between and is the minority of the victim, which determines the charge of offence under and/or under . … However, where the Trial Court erred in framing a charge under but factum of rape is clearly proven, and prosecution failed to establish the age of the victim, charge under fails, while prosecution for charge under sustains,” the Court observed.
No
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the absence of a Section 376 charge deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend. It found that the offence of rape is cognate to under the , sharing the same ingredients. The accused had a full opportunity to contest the factual allegations of penetration, which were identical under both provisions.
“When the accused has been given an opportunity to defend himself against an offence under , being of the same nature as offence under , there is no hesitation in holding that in event of prosecution's failure to prove victim's minority, there would be no in proceeding against him under a charge of ,” the bench stated.
The Court also referred to the test laid down in , which permits conviction for an uncharged offence if the accused was aware of its basic ingredients, the main facts were clearly explained, and he received a fair chance to defend.
Medical and Forensic Evidence Corroborates Rape
The judgment highlighted the overwhelming evidence against the appellant. The victim identified him in a . The medical examination revealed a torn hymen and partial penile penetration. The appellant himself sustained a cut injury on his forehead, consistent with the victim’s account of striking him with a stone. The report detected the appellant’s blood group on the victim’s clothing and seminal stains on his underwear.
“All the prosecution witnesses … were unanimous in their oral testimony that the accused person had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and nothing was shaken in cross to disbelieve their depositions as their statement are firm and convincing,” the Court noted.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the conviction under but convicted the appellant under for rape. The sentence was reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default six months simple imprisonment. The conviction under was confirmed.
The judgment clarifies a crucial procedural point: a failure to frame a charge under does not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal when the evidence clearly establishes rape. The appellate court can remedy the error, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused.
