Inference of Consent Cannot be Drawn from Absence of Injuries: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction in Decades-Old Gang Rape Case
Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh & Ors
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2567 OF 2024
Dated: May 15,2024
Quorum: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case revolve around the offence punishable under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (commonly referred to as “the IPC”), the respondents in the criminal proceedings have been found guilty by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shimla by the contested judgement and order in March 2017. Both of them received harsh sentences of three years in prison and a Rs. fifty thousand fine. Should they fail to pay the fee, they would be subject to a severe six-month prison sentence. Paying the prosecutrix with the fine amount, if deposited, was mandated.
The Trial Court cleared the accused on the grounds that the accused’s defense—that the sexual encounters were consensual—could not be disregarded in the lack of supporting evidence of a struggle on the prosecutrix’s part or supporting harm to the accused’s person.
An appeal was filed against the acquittal verdict by the appellant, the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Sessions Court’s decision was overturned by the High Court’s order of March 28, 2008, and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Court with the instruction that the accused be tried for the crime of gang rape.
Due to the death of one of the defendants, Anil, the case was tried against only five people following the remand decision. Both the accused and the prosecution accepted their cross-examination and the evidence that had been recorded prior to remand. Through its ruling and decree dated September 24, 2008, the Sessions Court once more issued an acquittal decree.
The High Court intervened in an appeal that the State had favoured by issuing the contested judgement and order. It changed the accused’s acquittal into a conviction for the crime covered by Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 2567 of 2024 has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State is upset about the portion of the challenged judgement that reduced the accused’s sentence to three years in prison, which is less than the ten-year minimum stipulated by Section 376(2). This provision was in effect on the day the alleged offence was committed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 375 of the IPC- Rape. An individual is considered to have committed “rape” if he: inserts, to any extent, any object or part of the body—that is, anything other than the penis—into a woman’s vagina, urethra, or anus, or forces her to do so with him or another person; or manipulates any part of the woman’s body in such a way as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus, or any other part of her body.
- Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC- Punishment for rape. If someone is a police officer and commits rapes a woman in their care or the care of a police officer subordinate to them, or if they are a public servant and commit rapes a woman in their care or the care of a public servant subordinate to them, those areas are off limits for police officers.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
The learned counsel for the appellant/State argues that on remand, the Sessions Court’s decision was deemed erroneous by the state’s knowledgeable attorney. He argued that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that the sexual encounter was conducted with her permission after reading the prosecutrix’s testimony. According to him, the Trial Court’s method of handling a case involving gang rape of this magnitude was totally inappropriate.
He argued that there was no justification for the High Court to exercise clemency and spare the accused from punishment that fell short of the mandatory minimum period. He argued that the State’s appeal should be granted in order to impose a minimum mandated punishment.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that two verdicts of acquittal in favour of the accused were made using the same evidence. He argued that the High Court did not turn the acquittal into a conviction in the appeal against the initial decision of acquittal and instead issued an order of remand. He admitted that the High Court’s decision said that the prosecutrix was older than sixteen on the date the alleged offence occurred.
It was also further argued that consensual sexual relations with a lady who was above sixteen was not illegal, according to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, as it was in effect on the relevant date. He urged us to look at the conclusion made in the High Court’s contested decision. According to his submission, the prosecutrix voluntarily followed accused Vijay, who was seated next to her in the video parlour where the prosecutrix was watching a movie. This was the ruling made by the High Court.
According to his submission, the prosecutrix voluntarily followed accused Vijay, who was seated next to her in the video parlour where the prosecutrix was watching a movie. This was the ruling made by the High Court.
He drew attention to the fact that the High Court had decided that the prosecutrix knew the accused Vijay and that he had expressed interest in getting married to her. He stated that even according to the prosecutrix’s case, she had moved ahead of the accused Vijay and arrived at a town bridge.
He said that following careful review of the available evidence, the Sessions Court cleared the accused on two separate times. He emphasised that subsequent to the remand, the Sessions Court determined that the prosecutrix’s testimony included discrepancies and that she had made changes.
Furthermore, the idea that they had sex without her consent is refuted by her actions on the day of the incident. He argued that the mere fact that a different conclusion could be drawn from the same evidence did not warrant the intervention of the High Court.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court reviewed of the challenged decision reveals that, after taking based on the evidence, the High Court has determined that the it has been proven that the accused is guilty. The High Court claims that this finding was the only one that could have been documented based on the documented evidence.
Prior to examining the evidence, it is important to highlight that accused Vijay claimed, in his statement made pursuant to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (also known as “the Cr.PC.”), that he had an intimate relationship with the prosecutrix for a year. This claim is documented in paragraph 12 of the Sessions Court’s judgement, which was made following remand. For that, she had been collecting money.
According to sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Cr. PC, the court noted that the conviction cannot be based only on the statements provided by the accused. It is necessary to take into account the accused’s remarks in tandem with the prosecution’s proof. When an accused person bears the burden of proof under a statute, the statements might be more significant. An accused person can always prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence when the law requires them to bear the burden of proof. However, the court may undoubtedly take into account the accused’s Section 313 declaration when determining whether or not he has met his burden of proof.
The court held that Vijay was accused of being occupying the chair close to her. She said accused Vijay advised her to take a bath at a specific location. But she refused to do that. She was informed by accused Vijay that he would like to marry her. The two stepped out of the camera booth and was led to a Manali bridge.where they made her wait. A car driven by a Gipsy was brought. Accused Munna (the fugitive accused) and Ravi. The prosecution before being driven to Solang Nullah and instructed to sit in the car. The when the car came to a stop, accused Vijay brought her close to the Nullah. A massive rock was present. According to her, Vijay was there and possessed her, and engaged in forced sexual relations.
The judge inquired The High Court’s learned judges were aware that the case they were handling included an incident that occurred 28 years ago and that, in the meanwhile, the accused and their families had made progress in life. Consequently, the High Court believed that the exercise of authority under the proviso was justified by sufficient grounds. Nearly 35 years after the incident, an augmentation in sentence is not warranted under the circumstances of this case.
As a result, the court dismissed both the State’s and the accused Vijay’s appeals as without merit. With the possible exception of the accused Vijay, others might have received a three-year term.
According to the ruling dated May 7, 2018, accused Vijay was granted bail in his appeal. He has not served the three-year sentence. He cannot be given any further mercy, given the seriousness of the offence. As a result, Vijay, the accused, must serve out the remainder of his sentence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
