DILIP versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 16-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 957 
DILIP 
v . 
. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 2010) 
APRIL 16, 2013 
[DR. B.S.CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 376 and 450 - Rape of a minor girl - Acquittal by trial 
court holding that prosecutrix was not below 16 years of age 
and it was a case of consent- Conviction by High Court with 
A 
B 
c 
7 years RI - Held: Evidence of father of prosecutrix, doctor who 
medically examined and teacher of night school and school 
D 
register clearly establish the age of prosecutrix to be 14 years 
at the time of occurrence - Besides, doctor found that 
prosecutrix had only 28 teeth, 14 in each jaw, which further 
indicates that she was 14 years of age - Therefore, question 
of consent becomes totally irrelevant- There is no reason to 
E 
interfere with judgment of High Court - Sexual assault - Age 
of prosecutrix - Relevancy of number of teeth. 
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN: 
Sexual assault cases - Sensitivity to be shown by F 
prosecution and trial court - Directions given by Supreme 
Court in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum's case, 
reiterated - Further directions given - Director General of 
Police and Home Ministry of the State to issue proper 
guidelines and instructions to authorities as to how to deal with 
G 
such cases and the kind of treatment to be given to 
prosecutrix. 
Bishnudayal v. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 39j Kai/ash 
957 
H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A @ Tanti Banjara v, State of M.P. 2013 (6) SCALE 1; State of 
H.P. v. Mange Ram, 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 626 = AIR 2000 
SC 2798; Uday v. State of Kamataka, 2003 (2) SCR 231 = 
AIR 2003 SC 1639; Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar 
& Anr., 2007 (9) SCR 58 = AIR 2007 SC 3059; Delhi 
B Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India & Ors.,· 
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 528 = (1995) 1 SCC 14 - referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1981 SC 39 
referred to 
para 11 
2013 (6) SCALE 1 
referred to 
para 11 
2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 626 
referred to 
para 12 
2003 (2) SCR 231 
referred to 
para 14 
2007 (9) SCR 58 
referred to 
para 15 
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 528 referred to 
para 17 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1156 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2006 of the 
High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Crl. Appeal No. 1228of1992. 
B. Sridhar for the Appellant. 
F 
Vibha Datta Makhija, Ashok K. Mahajan for the 
G 
Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 4.11.2006 in Criminal Appeal 
No.1228 of 1992 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at · 
Jabalpur, by way of which it reversed the judgment and order 
H of the Sessions Judge, Seoni, Madhya Pradesh dated 
DILIP v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
959 
16.7.1992 in Sessions Trial No.82 of 1990, by which the 
A 
appellant stood acquitted of the charges punishable under 
Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(hereinafter referred to as 'I PC'). 
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are 
B 
that:-
A. The appellant is younger brother of the brother-in-law 
of the prosecutrix-Diplesh. The appellant came to the house of 
the prosecutrix on 13.6.1990. Her parents and elder brother left 
for the market leaving the prosecutrix and her younger brother 
C 
in the house. The appellant found the prosecutrix alone as her 
brother was merely a child and raped her. The prosecutrix 
fainted and on regaining her consciousness, the prosecutrix 
narrated the incident to her father who lodged the FIR with the 
police on the same day. 
D 
B. The appellant was arrested on 15.6.1990 and after 
investigation, the prosecution filed chargesheet against the 
appellant .under. Sections 376 and 450 IPC. 
C. The Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1990 
E 
acquitted the appellant vide judgment dated 16.7.1992, on the 
ground that the prosecution failed to prove that prosecutrix was 
below· 16 years of age, and secondly that she had consented 
·for having sexual intercourse with the appellant. 
D. Aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal 
No.1228 of 1992, before the High Court. The High Court 
reversed the judgment of the Sessions Court, convicted the 
appellant for the said offences and awarded punishment of 7 
F 
years on both counts. The State appeal· has been allowed. 
G 
Hence, this appeal. 
3. Shri Ashok Mahajan and Shri B. Sridhar, learned 
Amicus Curiae have sut>mitte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.