Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition, where the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellant was accused No. 4 in a case involving the kidnapping, enticement, and rape of a minor prosecutrix. The father filed a written report alleging that Ramasre alias Siri enticed his 14-year-old daughter, with the appellant and others cooperating. An FIR was lodged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, and after investigation, charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for various offences, including 20 years under Section 376D IPC for gang rape, with sentences to run concurrently. One co-accused, Raksharam, was acquitted. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, confirming the conviction. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that discrepancies in the complaint and prosecutrix's statements, along with alleged consensual sex and age issues, rendered the evidence unreliable. He specifically argued that the conviction under Section 376D IPC was unjustified as it did not constitute gang rape. The State defended the convictions, asserting that the evidence, including testimony from the prosecutrix and her parents, and medical proof of pregnancy, was sufficient. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that while there were discrepancies, the core testimony of the prosecutrix as PW3, supported by medical evidence, established that the appellant had physical relations with her, leading to pregnancy. However, the court found that the evidence did not support a charge of gang rape under Section 376D IPC, as there was no proof that multiple persons committed the sexual act in furtherance of common intention. The court held that the prosecutrix's testimony primarily implicated the appellant alone, with others involved in enticing her. On age and consent, the court affirmed that under the POCSO Act, consent of a minor is immaterial, and the father's complaint and medical evidence established her as a minor. The court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 376D IPC and modifying it to Section 376 IPC, while upholding the convictions under other charges. The sentences were adjusted accordingly, with directions for recalculation.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Sexual Offences - Gang Rape vs. Individual Rape - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376D - The appellant was convicted under Section 376D IPC for gang rape, but the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence that multiple persons committed sexual act in furtherance of common intention. The court held that the evidence did not establish gang rape, as the prosecutrix's testimony primarily implicated the appellant alone, and other accused were involved in enticing and taking her away, not in sexual assault. The conviction under Section 376D was set aside and modified to Section 376 IPC. (Paras 10-11) B) Criminal Law - Evidence and Proof - Reliability of Prosecutrix's Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366, 376, 506; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4 - The appellant challenged the conviction based on discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements and age. The court held that minor discrepancies in the complaint and statements under Section 164 Cr.PC do not vitiate the core evidence of rape, as the prosecutrix's testimony as PW3, supported by medical evidence of pregnancy, was reliable. The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, noting that consent is immaterial for a minor. (Paras 6-9) C) Criminal Law - Age Determination and Consent - Minor's Consent Irrelevant - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4 - The appellant argued that the sexual act was consensual and the prosecutrix's age was around 17-18 years. The court held that the father's complaint indicated age as 14 years, and medical evidence suggested around 16 years, establishing her as a minor. Under POCSO Act, consent of a minor is irrelevant, and the charge under Section 4 POCSO Act was upheld. The court rejected the consensual sex defense. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 376D IPC for gang rape is sustainable based on the evidence on record, and whether the discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements and age determination vitiate the conviction under other charges
Final Decision
Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, set aside conviction under Section 376D IPC and modified it to Section 376 IPC, upheld convictions under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, with sentences to be recalculated accordingly
Law Points
- Consent of minor is immaterial under POCSO Act
- discrepancies in statements not fatal if core evidence is reliable
- gang rape requires evidence of multiple persons committing sexual act in furtherance of common intention
- age determination based on medical evidence and parental testimony
- conviction under Section 376D IPC unsustainable without proof of gang rape
