MOHD. IMRAN KHAN versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 10-10-2011 · 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 
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1030 
MOHD. IMRAN KHAN 
v. 
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1516 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 10, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- s.376 - Rape - Age of prosecutrix 
-Margin of error in age ascertained by radiological 
c examination - Held: The medical report and the deposition 
of the Radiologist cannot predict the exact date of birth, rather 
it gives an idea with a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either 
side. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.376 - Rape - Testimony of 
D prosecutrix - Appreciation of - Held: The statement of 
prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, 
requires no corroboration -
The court may convict the 
accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix - On facts, 
the trial court found no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix -
· E The evidence of rape stood fully corroborated by the medical 
evidence - Conviction of accused-appellants accordingly 
upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.114(b) and s.118. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.376 rlw s.34 - Conviction under, 
for rape of minor - Issue of sentencing - Trial Court had 
F sentenced the accused-appellants to RI for 7 years - High 
Court after taking into consideration all the circumstances 
including that the incident took place in 1989; the appeal 
before it was pending for more than 10 years; the prosecutrix 
had willingly accompanied the appellants to another city and 
G stayed with them in the hotel; and she was more than 15 years 
of age when she eloped with the appellants and the 
appellants were young boys, reduced the sentence to 5 years 
which was less than the minimum prescribed sentence for the 
offence - Held: As the High Court itself awarded the sentence 
H 
1030 
MOHD. IMRAN KHAN v. STATE (GdVT. OF NCT OF 1031 
DELHI) 
. less than the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence 
A 
recording special reasons, it is not a fit case to reduce the 
sentence further - Sentence/Sentencing. 
Criminal Trial - Investigation - Role of the Investigating 
Officer - Held: The investigation into a criminal offence must 
be free from all objectionable features or infirmities which 
B 
may legitimately lead to a grievance to either of the parties 
that the investigation was unfair or had been carried out with 
an ulterior motive which had an adverse impact on the case 
of either of the parties - The Investigating Officer is supposed 
to investigate an offence avoiding any kind of mischief or c 
harassment to either of the party - He has to be fair and 
· conscious so as to rule out any possibility of bias or impartial 
conduct so that any kind of suspicion to his conduct may be 
dispelled and ethical conduct is absolutely essential for 
investigative professionalism. 
The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, a 
fifteen year old girl, was raped by the two appellants. The 
trial court convicted the appellants under Section 366 IPC 
rlw Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 
D 
4 years. Both the appellants were further sentenced under 
E 
Section 376 IPC to RI for 7 years. On appeal, the High 
Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under 
Section 376 IPC, however, set aside their conviction 
under Sections 366/34 IPC and further reduced the 
sentence from 7 years RI to 5 years RI. 
F 
In the instant appeals, the appellants challenged their 
conviction under Section 376 IPC inter alia on grounds 
that the prosecutrix was over 16 years of age on the date 
of incident and that she was a willing partner in the entire 
episode. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD:1. The incident statedly occurred on or about 
25-11-1989. Both the courts below had laboured hard to 
find out the age of the prosecutrix for the reason that 
defence produced certificate from Safdarjung Hospital, 
H 
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A New Delhi to create confusion and the 1.0. in order to help 
the accused-appellants had made a statement that the 
certificate on record did not belong to the prosecutrix. 
The Birth Certificate issued under Section 17 of the 
Registration of Birth & Death Act, 1969 reveals that a 
B female child was born on 2.9.1974 by the wedlock of 
Prabhu Dass and Devki, the parents of the prosecutrix. 
This certificate has been duly proved by the Medical 
Record Officer, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi (PW.9). 
Similar evidence had been given by the C.M.O., N.D.M.C., 
Delhi (PW.7). These documents have thoroughly been 
C examined by the 

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