MANAK CHAND @ MANI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 74 : 2023 INSC 959
74
CASE DETAILS
MANAK CHAND @ MANI 
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2276 of 2014 )
OCTOBER 30, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND 
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justiﬁ ed in 
convicting and sentencing the appellant for oﬀ ence of rape u/s. 376 IPC.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 376 – Rape - Allegation of the prosecutrix 
aged less than 16 years, against her sister’s brother-in-law-appellant 
that she was raped two three times when she had gone to her sister’s 
matrimonial home – Considering the family relations, initially the 
matter was sought to be settled by the marriage of the two – However, 
the oﬀ er was turned down, and the prosecutrix’s father lodged an FIR – 
Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s. 376 by the courts 
below – Correctness:
Held: Testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire conﬁ dence – She 
did not disclose the incident immediately, rather there were allegations of 
rape on two three occasions but no date or time disclosed – She disclosed 
about the incident to her mother after one and a half months – The date 
the prosecutrix alleged the ﬁ rst incident of rape, was the same date, the 
prosecution led evidence that she had attended a school located at a separate 
place – This seems improbable, if not impossible – Also FIR was ultimately 
ﬁ led as the initial proposal of marriage was turned down – All these facts 
cast a doubt on the prosecution case – Evidence, as to the age or even rape 
not examined properly by the courts below – No deﬁ nite conclusion could 
have been made regarding the age of the prosecutrix – Prosecution did 
not successfully prove that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of 
75
age at the time of the alleged commission of the crime – Furthermore, the 
prosecution failed to do the bone ossiﬁ cation test for determination of the 
age of the prosecutrix – Thus, the appellant to be given beneﬁ t – As to the 
factum of rape itself, the oﬀ ence of rape not made out as it did not meet 
the ingredients of rape as deﬁ ned u/s. 375, as no evidence found which 
may suggest that the appellant, even though had sexual intercourse with 
the prosecutrix, it was against her will or without her consent – Thus, the 
order of the courts below set aside and appellant acquitted of the charges. 
[Paras 6, 9, 11 and 12]
Evidence – Oﬀ ence of rape – Testimony of the prosecutrix – 
Evidentiary value:
Held: Conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of 
the prosecutrix – Courts have to be extremely careful while examining this 
sole testimony – Furthermore, both the prosecutrix as well as the accused 
have a right for a fair trial – Thus, when the statement of the prosecutrix 
does not inspire conﬁ dence and creates a doubt, the court must look for 
corroborative evidence. [Para 5]
Evidence – Rape case – Bone ossiﬁ cation test – Requirement:
Held: In such cases, a bone ossiﬁ cation test is required to be done, in 
order to come to some reliable conclusion as to the age of the prosecutrix. 
[Para 9]
Criminal jurisprudence – Guiding principle: 
Held: Courts must examine each evidence with open mind 
dispassionately as an accused is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty – 
Guiding principle shall always be the Blackstone ratio which holds that it is 
better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished. [Para 7]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384: [1996] 1 SCR 
532; Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2006) 
10 SCC 92; Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 
133: [2008] 16 SCR 1078; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988) Supp 
SCC 604 – referred to. 
MANAK CHAND @ MANI v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
76  
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.2276 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2014 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAS No.1051 of 2001.
Appearances:
Jay Kishor Singh, Mohit Raj, Hemant Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Samar Vijay Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Keshav Mittal, Sabarni Som, 
Aman Dev Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. The appellant before this Court has been convicted under Section 
376 of the Indian Penal Code (h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.