LexPARHLAD AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 673 PARHLADANDANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 983 of2015) AUGUST 03, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: ss. 363, 366A, 376134 - Rape - Prosecution case was that appellant no. 1, cousin of C prosecutrix's father took her to the house of his uncle appellant no. 2 and sexually assaulted her- Conviction by trial court - High Court concurring wit~ the view of trial court that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age affirmed the conviction - Oh appeal, Held: The testimony of the o prosecutrix, her father; and the school leaving certificate were found to be truthful- Prosecutrix also deposed that she was about 14 years of age atthe time ofincident- There was no perversity of approach as regards the determination of age of prosecutrix - Once it is held that the prosecutrix was below E 16 years of age, consent becomes meaningless - Even. otherwise, prosecutrix was in a totally helpless situation under the dominion of two grown up males and her submission cannot be construed as a consented sexual act- Interference · with the conviction and sentence not called for - . Crime F against women. Sentence/Sentencing: Rape case·- Plea of reduction of sentence - Held: An offence of rape is an assault on human rights of a victim - Perpetrators of crime must realize that G when they indulge in such an offence, that really create a · concavity in the dignity and bodily integrity of an individual which is recognized, assured and affirmed by very essence 673 H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A of Article 21 of the Constitution - Penal Code, 1860: ss. 363, 366A, 376134 - Human Rights - Constitution of India, 1950 -Art.21. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court, on re-appreciation of the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father coupled with the testimony of PW-1, the Head Master of the concerned school found that the version of the prosecution was C truthful. The prosecutrix had deposed that she was about 14 years of age at the time she went with her uncle and was made a prey of the uncontrolled debased conduct of the appellants. The father of the prosecutrix had testified in a c~tegorical manner· about the factum o of age of the prosecutrix. The Principal, PW-1, who had proved the school leaving certificate had stood embedded in his testimony and not paved the path of tergiversation despite the roving cross-examination. Nothing was elicited to create on iota of doubt in his E testimony. On the said premises, the conclusion was · arrived at that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. The radiologist who had conducted the ossification test had op.ined that the age of the prosecutrix might be 16- 17 years. The High Court in its analysis had recorded F that the said piece of evidence was not beyond reproach inasmuch as it had not depicted the ·true situation as the eruption of teeth, number of teeth and many other aspects were not observed by the doctor conducting the ossification test. There was no perversity of approach G as regards the determination of age of the prosecutrix. [Paras 5, 6, 8] [679-B-F; 681-B] 2. Once it is held that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, consent is absolutely irrelevant and totally H meaningless. However, the High Court had addressed PARHLADANDANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 675 itself with regard to the plea of consent advanced by the A accused persons. The material brought on record clearly reveal that first cousin of the father of the prosecutrix in the absence of her parents at home had asked her to go with him for harvesting wheat crop and accordingly she had accompanied him to the residence of the appellant B . No. 2, the maternal uncle of appellant no.1. The prosecutrix had deposed that she was in a totally helpless situation and despite her resistance she was sexually abused. The mental and physical condition of a young girl under the .dominion of two grown up males C who had become slaves of their prurient attitude can be well imagined. The consent, apart from legal impermissibility, cannot be conceived of. ,[Para 9) (681- B-F] .... D 3. There is no justification or warrantfor thinking of reduction of sentence in this case. The appellants had taken advantage of their social relationship with the prosecutrix. She had innocently trusted the first appellant and, in fact, there was no reason to harbour E any kind of d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.