STATE OF ASSAM versus RAMEN DOWARAH

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 11-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 179 
STATE OF ASSAM 
A 
v. 
RAMEN DOWARAH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 668 of2011) 
JANUARY 11,2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.30213761454 - Prosecution under -
Of respondent-accused alongwith co-accused - For the commission 
of offence of rape and thereafter causing death of prosecutrix setting 
her ablaze by pouring kerosene - Incident seen by brother of 
prosecutrix (minor witness-PW5) - In oral Dying Declaration 
C 
prosecutrix 
named the respondent-accused having committed the 
acts - Trial Court convicted the respondent-accused while acquitting 
the co-accused - High Court acquitted the accused u!s.376 and 
altered the conviction u/s.302 to 304(Part II) holding that it was a 
consensual sexual intercourse and the accused set the prosecutrix D 
ablaze in the spur of moment - On appeal, held: In view of the 
evidence and the circumstances of the case, it cannot be called a 
case of consensual sexual intercourse - The respondent-accused 
had the intention to eliminate the prosecutrix by setting her ablaze, 
so that the commission of offence of rape did not see the light of the 
day - No circumstances were brought on record to indicate that it 
E 
was case of any exception to take it out from the realm of s.300 !PC 
- The act amounts to murder - Therefore, the respondent-accused 
is liable to be convicted u!s.302 and u/s. 376 - Order of trial court 
is restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In view of the evidence and circumstances of 
the case, what emerges is that it could not be said to be a case of 
consensual sexual intercourse. The victim had made a hue and 
cry on commission of rape on her and also on being threatened 
that she would narrate the incident to her mother, respondent-
accused had set her ablaze after pouring kerosene over her body. 
Thus the High Court has erred in upsetting the finding of the 
trial court which was based on the circumstances of the case and 
the evidence on record which clearly makes out that it was not a 
case of consensual sexual intercourse. In the case of consensual 
179 
F 
G 
H 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] l S.C.R. 
A sexual intercourse victim would not have raised a hue and cry 
and would not have immediately threatened the perpetrator of 
the crime with the disclosure of the incident to her mother. She 
was clothless when kerosene oil was poured on her as stated by 
her brother PW-5. It was in fact in order to remove the evidence 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of rape, the respondent-accused had poured kerosene on her 
and set her ablaze. However, the minor brother had witnessed 
the incident by peeping from the slit of door and victim also 
survived for some time to narrate the incident. The High Court 
has erred in law in acquitting the respondent-accused from 
commission of the offence under section 376 IPC.[Para 9] [184-
8, F-H; 185-A-8] 
1.2 The age of the victim was mentioned in the FIR as 14 
years. In the medical report, Doctor has recorded the age of the 
victim to be 14 years. In the postmortem report also age is 
mentioned as 15 years. However, radiological examination 
evidence so as to ascertain the age of the deceased has not been 
adduced. Hence, the Court wonld not upset the finding of the 
High Court that the prosecution has not been able to establish 
the age of the deceased. However it remains that she was young 
and not well-built and could be over-powered very easily. [Para 
9] [1.84-C-DJ 
1.3 Men may lie but the circumstances do not, is the cardinal 
principle of evalution of evidence. The circumstances, the oral 
evidence and dying declarations of the deceased unerringly 
pointed out that it was not a case of consensual sexual intercourse. 
The dying declarations read together with the immediate conduct 
of victim takes it out to be a case of consensual sexual intercourse. 
[Para 9] [185-8-CJ 
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. 1996 (1) SCR 
532 : (1996) 2 sec 384. - referred to. 
2. In view of the finding that it was not a case of consensual 
sexual intercourse and the shameful method and manner in which 
the incident has taken place, leaves no room for any doubt that 
the accused wanted to eliminate the deceased for all time to come. 
He intended to cause death by setting her ablaze so that 
commission of offence of rape does not see the light of the day. 
No circumstance has been brought on record to indicate that it 
H was a case of any exception, to take it out from the realm of secti

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