STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus PREETAM

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 29-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
PREETAM
(Criminal Appeal  No.  2229 of 2011)
AUGUST 29, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.376– Prosecutrix raped by respondent-
accused– Trial court convicted the respondent– High Court reversed
the conviction and acquitted the respondent– On appeal, held: In
the present case evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is supported by
medical evidence and also by the evidence of PW-4, who saw the
accused running away from the scene of occurrence– Delay in
registration of F.I.R. was properly explained– This was not
considered by High Court– Judgment of High Court set aside and
that of trial court convicting the respondent restored– However, in
the instant case, the occurrence was of the year 1993 i.e. about 25
years ago– Having regard to the passage of time and discretion
vested with the Court as per proviso to s.376(1) (prior to 2013
amendment) to impose imprisonment for a term less than seven years,
the sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed on the
respondent is reduced to four years– Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 2013.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.375, Sixthly – Rape – Consent of victim
– When not relevant – Held: Under s.375, Sixthly, a man is said to
commit rape with or without the consent of prosecutrix, when she is
under sixteen years of age – Prosecutrix being aged 12 years at the
time of the occurrence, her consent or otherwise was of no relevance.
Evidence – Rape – Age of victim – School documents as proof
for – Appreciation of.
Evidence – Rape – Absence of external injuries on the person
of the rape victim – Effect  of – Held: Absence of injury on the
person of the rape victim does not lead to an inference that the
incident had taken place with the consent of the prosecutrix – It
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Further,
even in the absence of external injury,  the oral testimony of the
prosecutrix that she was subjected to rape, cannot be ignored.
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 627
627
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the absence of external injury on the person
of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the incident had
taken place with the consent of the prosecutrix. It depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. Absence of injury on
the person of the victim of rape does not lead to an inference that
the accused did not commit forcible sexual intercourse. Even in
the absence of external injury, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix
that she was subjected to rape, cannot be ignored. In the present
case, evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is supported by the medical
evidence and also by the evidence of PW-4, who saw the accused
running away from the scene of occurrence. [Paras 9-10]
[630-G-H; 631-A-B]
1.2  The school registers are the authentic documents being
maintained in the official course, entitled to credence of much
weight unless proved otherwise. Considering the evidence of
PW-8, Head master/Head teacher of Primary School and the
school certificate produced by him i.e. Ex.P/13-A, age of the victim
has to be taken as 12 years at the time of occurrence. As per
Section 375 IPC, a man is said to commit rape, Sixthly - “With or
without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age”.
The prosecutrix being aged 12 years at the time of the occurrence,
her consent or otherwise was of no relevance to bring the offence
within the meaning of Section 375 IPC. The High Court ignored
the material evidence adduced by the prosecution and erred in
reversing the conviction of the respondent-accused.
[Paras 12, 13] [631-G; 632-A-B]
1.3 The delay in registration of the FIR was properly
explained, which was not considered by the High Court. The
judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court
is restored. [Paras 14, 15] [632-D-E]
1.4  Prior to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
(w.e.f. 3rd February, 2013) under Section 376(1) IPC, the sentence
of imprisonment for a term shall not be less than 7 years
extending for life. However, as per the proviso to Section 376(1)
IPC (prior to amendment) discretion is vested with the Court to
impose imprisonment for a term of less than seven years for
adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. In
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
this case, the occurrence was of the year 1993 i.e. about 25 years
ago. Having regard to the passage of time and other facts and
circumstances of the case, the sentence of

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