Can gang rape convictions under Section 376(d) IPC be upheld despite delayed FIR, TIP irregularities, hostile witnesses, and lack of DNA testing?

Chhattisgarh High Court affirms established precedents on hostile-witness evidence, excuses delay in rape FIRs, and holds FSL and medical findings sufficient, creating binding authority for lower courts.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name

CRA/118/2019 of NITESH KUJUR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

CNR CGHC010002282019

Date of Registration 16-01-2019
Decision Date 02-09-2025
Disposal Nature DISMISSED
Judgment Author Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Court High Court Of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Bench

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Precedent Value Binding authority for subordinate courts
Overrules / Affirms Affirms existing precedent
Type of Law Criminal law
Questions of Law Whether under Section 376(d) IPC convictions can be sustained despite delayed FIR, TIP flaws, hostile-witness testimony, and absence of DNA testing
Ratio Decidendi The High Court held that consistent statements of the prosecutrix and eyewitness, corroborated by medical and FSL evidence, suffice to prove gang rape beyond reasonable doubt. Minor omissions or hostility in witness testimony do not vitiate truthful portions if, after careful scrutiny, they remain dependable. Delay in lodging FIR in rape cases may be explained by familial deliberations and is not fatal. Defects in TIP or absence of DNA report are not fatal if FSL findings establish presence of semen and other evidence is overwhelming.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Selvamani v. State (2024 INSC 393)
  • Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220
  • C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567
  • Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130
  • Santa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 526
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon Principles on hostile-witness evidence from Selvamani, Muniappan, Vinod Kumar; law on delay in rape FIRs; technical-lapses doctrine; weight of medical and FSL evidence
Facts as Summarised by the Court A 20-year-old prosecutrix was allegedly gang-raped by ten accused in a jungle on 05.09.2017; FIR lodged on 09.09.2017; Section 164 CrPC statements recorded on 12.09.2017; medical and FSL reports showed multiple abrasions and semen; trials convicted eight adults and one juvenile under Section 376(d) IPC.
Citations
  • 2024 INSC 393
  • (2015) 3 SCC 220
  • (2010) 9 SCC 567
  • (2011) 7 SCC 130
  • AIR 1956 SC 526

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh
Persuasive For Other High Courts and trial courts
Distinguishes Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130
Follows
  • Selvamani v. State (2024 INSC 393)
  • Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220
  • C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Hostile-witness testimony can be accepted in part if consistent and dependable, following this Court’s application of Selvamani and Muniappan.
  • Delay in lodging FIR for gang rape may be excused as a result of familial deliberations and does not automatically undermine prosecution.
  • Defects in Test Identification Parade (TIP) do not vitiate convictions when identification is otherwise clear and corroborated by other evidence.
  • Absence of DNA testing is not fatal when FSL reports confirm presence of semen and spermatozoa on victim’s garments and accused’s underwear.
  • Medical evidence of multiple abrasions and expert opinion on intercourse carry substantial probative value.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Consistency of Statements
    FIR, Section 164 CrPC statements, and in-court testimony of the prosecutrix align on material particulars.
  2. Eyewitness Corroboration
    Miliyush Ekka’s account from concealment corroborates the prosecutrix’s version.
  3. Medical & FSL Evidence
    Dr. Mamta Singh’s examination and FSL report confirm multiple abrasions and presence of semen and spermatozoa.
  4. Hostile Witness Doctrine
    Following Selvamani, Muniappan, and Vinod Kumar, hostile witnesses’ reliable portions are admissible.
  5. Delay in FIR
    Recognised that family deliberations in rape cases can cause reasonable delay.
  6. Technical Lapses
    TIP irregularities and lack of DNA test are non-fatal where substantive evidence is overwhelming.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellants (Petitioners):

  • Five-day delay in lodging FIR was unexplained.
  • TIP was not conducted for three accused; TIP outcomes for others did not match descriptions.
  • Vaginal slides and garments were delayed in chemical examination; no DNA testing undertaken.
  • FSL reports unreliable due to custody and timing issues.
  • Procedural lapses create reasonable doubt; relied on Krishna Kumar Malik and Santa Singh.

Respondent (State):

  • Gravity of gang rape and multiple injuries justify strict view; consent irrelevant.
  • Delay due to family deliberations is permissible in rape cases.
  • Prosecutrix’s consistent statements and eyewitness account are reliable.
  • TIP defects are immaterial as prosecutrix and eyewitness knew the accused.
  • FSL and medical evidence corroborate prosecution case; technical lapses do not collapse the case.

Factual Background

The prosecutrix, aged about 20, was allegedly surrounded and gang-raped by ten persons on 05.09.2017 in a jungle near Kaikachar. She regained consciousness the next day wearing only a blouse and petticoat, received medical care, and lodged an FIR on 09.09.2017. Statements under Section 164 CrPC were recorded on 12.09.2017. Medical examination and FSL tests revealed multiple abrasions and presence of semen. Eight adults were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and one juvenile by the Juvenile Court; their appeals were dismissed by the High Court.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 376(d) IPC (gang rape): Elements and punishment applied.
  • Sections 161 & 164 CrPC: Statements to police and magistrate held admissible and consistent.
  • No statutory mandate for DNA: FSL finding of semen and spermatozoa deemed sufficient.
  • Delay in FIR: No statutory bar where delay is justifiable by social context.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed
  • 🔄 Conflicting Decisions

Citations

  • Selvamani v. State, 2024 INSC 393
  • Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220
  • C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567
  • Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130
  • Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.