Summary
The Supreme Court reversed an acquittal and restored a rape conviction, rejecting the inference of consent from absence of external injuries. The victim’s testimony was corroborated, school records proved her age, and the reporting delay was explained. Applying the law governing the 1993 offence, the Court held consent immaterial because she was under sixteen. It reduced imprisonment from seven to four years under the then-existing sentencing proviso.
Issues
- Whether absence of external injuries and delay justified acquittal despite the victim’s testimony and corroboration.
- How the victim’s age and the pre-2013 law affected consent and sentence.
Provisions considered
- Section 375, clause Sixthly, as applicable to the 1993 offence, Indian Penal Code, 1860The victim was under sixteen, so consent was immaterial under the provision then governing the offence. (¶ 11–13)
- Section 376(1) and its proviso, before the 2013 amendment, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction was restored, but the then-existing power to impose less than seven years for adequate and special recorded reasons was exercised to reduce imprisonment to four years. (¶ 15–17)
Held
- Absence of external injury does not by itself establish consent or exclude forcible intercourse. The victim’s testimony could not be ignored on that basis, particularly where medical evidence and a witness who saw the accused flee corroborated her account. (¶ 8–10)
- The doctor’s cross-examination response was not a conclusive age determination. The headmaster’s evidence and school certificate deserved weight; the prosecution was not required in every case to call the person who originally admitted the child to school. On this evidence the victim’s age was taken as twelve. (¶ 10–12)
- Under the Section 375 provision applicable to the 1993 occurrence, intercourse with a girl under sixteen constituted rape irrespective of consent. The High Court had disregarded material evidence and incorrectly treated consent as exculpatory. (¶ 13)
- The reporting delay was explained by the uncle’s absence from the village, the complaint after his return and the subsequent medical examination. The High Court failed to consider that explanation. (¶ 14)
- The acquittal was set aside and conviction restored. Given the long passage of time and the circumstances, the Court invoked the pre-2013 Section 376(1) proviso to reduce imprisonment to four years. If that term had not already been served, surrender within four weeks was required to serve the balance. (¶ 15–19)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; Section 376 conviction restored, imprisonment reduced from seven to four years under the then-applicable proviso. Surrender within four weeks if any part of that term remained unserved.