SATISH KUMAR JAYANTI LAL DABGAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 10-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015]2S.C.R. 751 
SATISH KUMAR JAYANTI LAL DABGAR 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2013) 
MARCH 10, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 363, 366, 376 - Kidnapping of a girl 
below 16 years, inducing her to marriage and commission 
of rape - Conviction of accused ulss. 363, 366, 376 and 
sentenced accordingly - High Court upheld the conviction 
o however, reduced sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 
seven years for offence punishable u/s. 376 to rigorous 
imprisonment for four and a half years - Plea for reduction 
of sentence - Case of accused that every act between the 
parties was consensual - On appeal, held: On facts, clause 
E sixthly of s. 375 attracted making her consent for sexual 
intercourse as immaterial - Minor is incapable of thinking 
rationally and giving any consent - Consent of a minor is 
not treated as valid consent- Duty is cast on the other person 
in not taking advantage of the so-called consent given by a 
F girl below 16 years- Other partner in the sexual act is treated 
as criminal who has committed the offence of rape - So-
called consent of the prosecutrix below 16 years of age cannot 
be treated as mitigating circumstance - If the consent of 
G minor is treated as mitigating circumstance, it would lead to 
disastrous consequences - Thus, accused not entitled to 
further reduction of sentence. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
751 
SATISH KUMAR JAYANTI LAL DABGAR v. STATE OF 752 
GUJARAT 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court rightly upheld the A 
conviction recorded by the trial court, there is no reason 
to deviate therefrom. Only plea raised by the counsel for 
the appellant even before the High Court was for 
reduction of sentence. The extenuating and mitigating 
circumstances narrated by the Amicus Curiae have been B 
duly taken note of by the High Court as well. In fact, going 
by these very circ1;1mstances projected by the defence, 
the High Court reduced the sentence of seven years 
rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 376 IPC C 
to 4% years. [Paras 12, 13] [762-E-F; 763-D-E] 
1.2 It is to be borne in mind is that the prosecutrix was 
less than 16 years of age. On this fact, clause sixthly of 
Section 375 IPC would get attracted making her consent 0 
for sexual 
intercourse 
as 
immaterial 
and 
inconsequential. The Legislature has introduced the 
said provision with sound rationale and there is an 
important objective behind such a provision. It is 
considered that a minor is incapable of thinking rationally E 
and giving any consent. For this reason, whether it is 
civil law or criminal law, the consent of a minor is not 
treated as valid. consent. Here the provision is 
concerning a girl child who is not only minor but less 
than 16 years of age. A minor girl can be easily lured into F 
giving consent for such an act without understanding 
the implications thereof. Such a consent, therefore, is 
treated as not an informed consent given after 
understanding the pros and cons as well as 
consequences of the intended action. Therefore, as a G 
necessary corollary, duty is cast on the other person in 
not taking advantage of the so-called consent given by 
a girl who is less than 16 years of age. Even when there 
is a consent of a girl below 16 years, the other partner in H 
753 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A the sexual act is treated as criminal who has committed 
the offence of rape. The law leaves no choice to him and 
he cannot plead that the act was consensual. A fortiori, 
the so-called consent of the prosecutrix below 16 years 
of age cannot be treated as mitigating circumstance. 
B [Paras 14, 15] [763-F; 764-B-F] 
1.3 Once the things are put in right perspective in the 
manner stated the case has to be treated where the 
appellant committed rape of a minor girl which is 
C regarded as heinous crime. Such an act of sexual assault 
has to be abhorred. If the consent of minor is treated as 
mitigating circumstance, it may lead to disastrous 
consequences. This view-gets strengthened when the 
0 
letter and spirit behind Protection of Children from 
Sexual Offences Act is kept in mind. [Para 16] [764-F-H] 
1.4 Merely because the appellant has now married hardly 
becomes a mitigating circumstance. Likewise, the 
appellant cannot plead that prosecutrix is also married 
E and having a child and, therefore, appellant should be 
leniently treated. It is not a case where the appellant has 
married the prosecutrix. Notwi

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