JARNAIL SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 8 S.C.R. 1044 
JARNAIL SINGH 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2010) 
JULY 1, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 366, 376(g) & 120-8 - A/legation 
that prosecurtix was forcefully taken away, and subjected to 
C rape by the appellant and his three accomplices - Conviction 
of appellant - Justification - Held: Justified, in view of the 
statement of the prosecutrix uls. 164 CrPC, as a/so, the 
statement made by her before the trial court, and the manner 
in which she was subjected to cross-examination -
D Substantial material corroborating the statement of the 
prosecutrix for unequivocal determination of the guilt of the 
appellant - Prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of 
appellant and thereafter, subjected to medico-legal 
examination by PW1 - PW1, in her independent testimony, 
E affirmed that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse, 
inasmuch as her hymen was found ruptured - Deposition of 
prosecutrix scientifically substantiated by report of FSL and 
of the Serologist -
Defence plea that prosecutrix had 
accompanied the appellant, and had sexual intercourse with 
F him consensually completely ruled out, because as per the 
substantiated prosecution version, prosecutrix was not taken 
away by the appellant alone, but also, by his three 
accomplices - Alf four of them had similarly violated her 
person - PWB, the father of the prosecutrix, a/so in material 
G particulars corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix -
Further, the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of occurrence 
- Even if she had accompanied the appellant of her own free 
will, and had had consensual sex with him, the same would 
have been clearly inconsequential, as she was a minor. 
H 
1044 
JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1045 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 
2007 - r. 12 - Rape - Age of prosecutrix - Determination -
Held: It would be just and· appropriate to apply r. 12 to 
determine the age of the prosecutrix - Even though r. 12 is 
strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in 
conflict with law, it should be the basis for determining age, 
even for a child who is a victim of crime - The manner of 
determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule 
(3) of r. 12 - Age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first 
available basis, out of a number of options postulated in 
A 
B 
r. 12(3) - Matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the c 
concerned child, is the highest rated option - Only in absence 
of the said certificate, r. 12(3), envisages consideration of the 
date of birth entered in the school first attended by the child 
- In absence of such entry, r.12(3) postulates reliance on birth 
certificatfJ issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or 0 
a panchayat - In absence of any of the aforesaid, r.12(3) 
postulates determination of age of the concerned child, on the 
basis of medical opinion - Juvenile Justice (Care and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2000-s.68(1)- Penal Code, 1860 
- s.376(g). 
E 
.The prosecution case was that when the prosecutrix 
had gone out of her house to urinate in the street, the 
appellant and his three accomplices kidnapped her and 
thereafter they committed rape on her, one after the other. 
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 
F 
366, 376(g) and 120-B IPC. The conviction was upheld by 
the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended by the 
appellant that the prosecutrix had voluntarily and with her 
G 
free consent, accompanied the appellant and had sexual 
intercourse with him consensually; and in support of this 
contention the appellant pointed out that the prosecutrix 
had taken Rs.3,000/- from her father's house to make 
good her escape in the company of the appellant. The 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A appellant also contested the determination of the High 
Court in the impugned judgment, wherein it had 
concluded, that the prosecutrix was a minor. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. In her statement before the Trial Court, 
where she appeared as PW6, the prosecutrix had 
reiterated clearly the position of having been taken away 
by the appellant, and his three accomplices. She affirmed, 
that she was taken away in a tanker to Uttar Pradesh and 
C then all the accused had committed rape on her in a small 
room. On the aforestated aspect of the matter, she was 
not subjected to cross-examin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.