Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-001295-001295 – 2018 |
| Diary Number | 9210/2018 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Precedent Value | Clarificatory authority on appellate interference in acquittal appeals |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the High Court’s judgment setting aside an acquittal |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence. Given the undisputed age (15 years) of the victim, her detailed ocular testimony constitutes sterling evidence. Medical reports from two independent doctors did not rule out sexual intercourse. Where consent is immaterial for a minor under Section 376 IPC, the only reasonable view supported conviction. Trial-court acquittal was perverse on the evidence, justifying appellate interference. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court affirmed that a High Court may fully reappraise both ocular and medical evidence when examining an acquittal appeal.
- A minor’s solitary deposition, if detailed and consistent, qualifies as sterling evidence even without external corroboration.
- Medical findings that “do not rule out” intercourse suffice to support conviction when the victim is under 16.
- Consent of a minor is legally irrelevant; any sexual act with a person below 16 constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Undisputed Age: The victim was 15 years old; age determination was not contested.
- Ocular Evidence: PW-4 (the victim) gave specific, coherent details of abduction, confinement and two instances of forcible intercourse.
- Medical Evidence (PW-1): Provisional opinion that intercourse “may have” occurred within one week; final opinion did not exclude intercourse.
- Medical Evidence (PW-2): No conclusive signs of anal intercourse but recognized the “possibility of sodomy.” Victim’s account to the doctor matched her court testimony.
- Minor’s Consent: Immaterial under Section 376 IPC; voluntary or involuntary intercourse with a minor is rape.
- Appellate Review: The High Court’s reappraisal was the only reasonable view; the trial court’s acquittal was perverse and warranted interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Accused)
- Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Major discrepancies in witness statements; medical evidence conflicts with the victim’s account.
- Victim not a sterling witness; benefit of doubt should go to accused.
- High Court exceeded scope by choosing a different view than the trial court.
Respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh)
- Victim was a minor (15 years); consent immaterial.
- Victim’s deposition detailed and consistent—sterling evidence.
- Medical evidence did not exclude intercourse; doctors corroborated possibility.
- High Court rightly reappreciated evidence and convicted.
Factual Background
The victim’s uncle lodged FIR No. 88/2007 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC; during investigation, Sections 376 and 377 IPC were added. The appellant and a co-accused were charged; the trial court acquitted both after examining 23 witnesses. The State appealed; the Himachal Pradesh High Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 377 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment plus fine. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 363 IPC (kidnapping) and Section 366 IPC (abduction) were established by ocular and medical testimony.
- Section 376 IPC (rape of a minor) applied irrespective of consent, as victim was under 16.
- Section 377 IPC (unnatural intercourse) supported by victim’s specific allegations and doctors’ acknowledgment that sodomy “cannot be ruled out.”
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed — The judgment reaffirms the scope of appellate interference and the standards for evaluating evidence in sexual-offence cases against minors.