Summary
The Court sustained proof of rape but held that gang rape or the other accused’s common intention in the sexual assault was not convincingly established. It substituted conviction under Section 376 IPC for Section 376D and imposed the period already undergone, exceeding eight years, while preserving the fine and default sentence. Kidnapping-related and POCSO convictions remained. The separate criminal-intimidation conviction was set aside for want of adequate supporting evidence. Release depended on payment of fine and absence of detention required in another case.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established gang rape as distinct from rape by the appellant.
- Whether the intimidation conviction and original sentence could stand on the proved facts.
Provisions considered
- Sections 376 and 376D, as applicable to the 2013 offence, Indian Penal Code, 1860The evidence proved rape by the appellant but did not convincingly prove group participation or common intention for gang rape. The pre-2018 sentencing provision was applied. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17)
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860The vague threat account did not adequately support the particular criminal-intimidation charge on this record. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- Sections 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860The kidnapping-related convictions and sentences were expressly preserved. (¶¶ 14, 17)
- Section 4, before the 2019 amendment, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The conviction and sentence under this provision remained undisturbed. (¶¶ 14, 17)
Held
- The victim’s testimony, assessed with the medical evidence, established rape despite the discrepancies relied on by the defence. The evidence did not convincingly establish the other accused’s participation or common intention in that sexual assault. Assistance in taking her away could not on these facts substitute for proof of gang rape. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The criminal-intimidation conviction lacked sufficient supporting evidence concerning the particular charged threat and was set aside. This was an assessment of this record rather than a general requirement for independent corroboration of every threat. (¶ 15)
- The 2018 increase in the minimum rape sentence did not apply to this earlier offence. In the circumstances considered, the Court imposed the period already undergone, which exceeded eight years, preserving the fine and default sentence and the concurrent sentences on the other affirmed convictions. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal partly allowed: Section 376D conviction replaced by Section 376 with imprisonment for the period undergone; Section 506 conviction set aside. Sections 363, 366 and POCSO Section 4 convictions preserved. Release ordered on payment of fine if not required in another case.