LexRAJU @ NIRPENDRA SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1821 : 2025 INSC 392 Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1172 of 2014) 27 February 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Prosecutrix, a minor village girl, was allegedly kidnapped on the pretext of securing her a job, and then gang raped by accused-appellants over a period of two months by holding her captive by threatening her life. Whether the trial court and the High Court erred in convicting appellants u/ss.366 and 376(2)(g) IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366 and 376(2)(g) – Village girl allegedly kidnapped and gang-raped by accused-appellants over a period of two months – Conviction of appellants by trial court and High Court – Propriety: Held: Dental examination of prosecutrix and further evidence such as photocopies of school register, transfer certificate, statement of the Principal of school, proved that prosecutrix was aged less than seventeen years of age at the starting date of the continuing offence – Guardian of the prosecutrix, PW-13, had also stated the age of the prosecutrix to be less than 18 years of age in the missing person’s report as well as in her deposition before the Trial Court – Once the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident is established to be that of minority, the question of consent per se becomes irrelevant and the act shall qualify as statutory rape nevertheless – Subjection to sexual intercourse under fear of accused persons can in no way be understood to mean as consent on part of the prosecutrix – Further, the reliance of the appellants on the medical report which suggested that the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse shall not further their contention of the sexual act to be consensual in nature – The * Author 1822 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports expression as “being accustomed to sexual intercourse” is nothing but an archaic notion of sexual purity which intends to morally shame the victim and downplay the role of consent, or the lack thereof, in an offence of rape – Moreover, the lack of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix shall also not be an important factor in the facts of the case since the offence continued for a period of two months and the medical investigation was conducted much after the first incidence of rape was committed – The issue of delay shall also be inconsequential to the case since firstly, the normal rule of delay does not apply to rape cases and further, the prosecutrix was held captive by the appellants for a period of two months and had no means to register the FIR earlier – Further, the statement of the prosecutrix made in the chief-examination regarding sexual assaults committed by the accused persons remained totally unimpeached even after being subjected to a lengthy cross-examination – No mitigating circumstances in the instant case so as to reduce the punishment as lesser than the minimum statutory sentence prescribed in the IPC. [Paras 19-24] Rape – Gang-rape – Once age of the victim at the time of the incident is established to be that of minority, the question of consent per se becomes irrelevant – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(g). [Para 20] Rape – Gang-rape – Subjection to sexual intercourse under fear of accused persons is not consent on part of the victim – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(g). [Para 20] Case Law Cited Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hiribhai v. State of Gujarat [1983] 3 SCR 280 : AIR 1983 SC 753 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Gang Rape; Kidnapping from lawful guardianship; Prosecutrix; Rape with minor; Delay in FIR; Effect of delay in rape cases; Accustomed to sexual intercourse; Offence against women. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1823 Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1172 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2013 of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur of CRA No. 1850 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal No(s). 1173 and 2575 of 2014 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Sidharath Dave, Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advs., B.P.S. Parihar, B. K. Satija, Shree Pal Singh, Anupam Mishra, Jenis V Francis, Harikumar V., Ms. Jemtiben. Ao., Nayan Dham, Rohan Trivedi. Advs. for the Respondent: V.V.V. Pattabhiram, D.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Aditya Chaudhary. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Vikram Nath, J. 1. The instant app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.