Summary
The Supreme Court restored the four accused’s gang-rape convictions and ten-year sentences, rejecting the High Court’s speculative custody timeline and reliance on improperly introduced material. The victim’s reliable evidence was supported by medical, forensic and other evidence; alleged sexual history did not establish consent. The Court also set aside directions to prosecute investigating officers, issued without hearing them or recording the required interests-of-justice finding. Both the State’s and officers’ appeals were allowed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly displaced the evidence supporting conviction.
- Whether material presented during appellate argument could support acquittal.
- Whether adverse remarks and prosecution directions against the officers complied with fairness and statutory procedure.
Provisions considered
- Section 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Additional appellate evidence required proper recording under the statutory procedure. Complaints merely produced at argument could not be relied upon to reverse conviction. (¶¶ 21, 31, 32, 33, 43)
- Section 340(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A prima facie foundation and a recorded opinion that action was expedient in the interests of justice were required. Contradictions alone did not automatically justify a complaint, and a preliminary inquiry was not invariably mandatory. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
Held
- The victim’s testimony was reliable and corroborated by the mother’s evidence, medical findings and forensic material. The High Court’s inference that an earlier police case made the assault impossible rested on assumptions inconsistent with the defence witnesses’ own accounts. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Reliable testimony of a sexual-assault complainant need not invariably be corroborated. Alleged sexual history or reputation did not deprive her of the right to refuse intercourse or justify rejecting her evidence. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 43)
- Complaints tendered only during appellate argument and untested departmental reports could not properly displace the trial evidence in the manner adopted. (¶¶ 21, 31, 32, 33, 43)
- Serious adverse remarks affecting the officers’ careers required an opportunity to respond. The High Court had not afforded that opportunity or recorded the required expediency finding for prosecution, so its directions could not stand. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46)
- The four gang-rape convictions and ten-year terms were restored under the law governing the incident, without sentence reduction. The accused were to surrender within four weeks or be taken into custody. The officers’ appeal against the complaint direction was also allowed. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46)
Result
Both appeals allowed. Four convictions under the then-applicable Section 376(2)(g) IPC and ten-year sentences restored; surrender within four weeks, failing which custody. Direction to lodge complaint against police officials set aside.