CASE ANALYSIS – Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, decided on 15 July, 2014

Particular	Details
Case Name	Om Prakash v. State of Haryana
Citation	Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2010
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment	15 July 2014
Judges	Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Appellants	Om Prakash, Kartar Singh, Chhoti
Respondent	State of Haryana

Introduction

The case of Om Prakash v. state of Haryana, determined by the supreme court of India on 15 July 2014, arises out of criminal appeal No. 807 of 2010, along with criminal AppealNos.1309 and 1310 of 2009, filed by the appellants Om Prakash, Kartar Singh, and Chhoti respectively. those appeals were filed against the judgment and order dated 30 July2008 passed by the high court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the additional sessions judge, Hissar, in its judgment dated 16 December 1996.

The appellants had been tried and convicted in connection with the rape of a minor girl aged approximately 15 years, which allegedly happened in Village Jagan, Haryana. The incident came to light after a delay of 20 days while the prosecutrix informed her mother upon her return from a relative’s residence. Following the registration of the FIR and next investigation, the prosecution filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 376(2)(g), 342, 506 read with 34 IPC. charges had been framed under section 376 IPC against Om Prakash and KartarSingh, and under section 109 IPC against Chhoti for abetment of the rape.

After a full-fledged trial and examination of eleven prosecution witnesses together with the prosecutrix, medical experts, and the investigating officer, the trial court located all 3 accused guilty. Om Prakash and Kartar Singh were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while Chhoti was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence before the high court, which dismissed their appeal. the matter was then brought before the supreme court, in which the principal legal questions concerned the credibility of the prosecutrix’s delayed testimony, the medical and documentary evidence of her minority, and whether Chhoti, being a woman, might be held liable for abetment of rape under section 109 IPC.

The Supreme Court, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence, medical reports, and legal contentions, dismissed all 3 appeals and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the courts below. The judgment is significant for its discussion on abetment of rape by awoman, minor’s consent, and the evidentiary value of delayed FIR in sexual assault instances.

Facts of the Case

On the day of the incident in Village Jagan, the prosecutrix, a minor girl aged about 15years, was alone at her residence. Her mother had long gone to Village Hasanga because of the death of the prosecutrix’s grandmother, and no other family member was present at home. Taking advantage of her being by herself, accused Chhoti came to the prosecutrix and asked her to fetch ‘lassi’ (buttermilk) from her house.

On this pretext, the prosecutrix went to the residence of accused Chhoti, which she shared with her husband Kartar Singh. As soon as the prosecutrix entered the residence, Kartar Singh and another accused, Om Prakash, who had been already inside, bolted the door from inside. within the house, the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by both Om Prakash and Kartar Singh. She was detained for about an hour, all through which she was threatened with dire consequences if she revealed the incident to anyone. subsequently, she was released and back to her residence.

Out of fear due to the threats, the prosecutrix did not divulge the incident to anybody for the following 20 days. It was only on 12 June 1995, when her mother Chando (PW6) returned home, that the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her. Following this, her father took her to the police station, and on 13 June 1995, an FIR became lodged at Police Station Agroha.

The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Jaipal Singh (PW8), who inspected the scene of the incident and recorded the statements of relevant witnesses. The prosecutrix was taken to the Ilaqa magistrate for recording her statement under section 164 CrPC. She was also referred for medical examination, which was carried out by Dr. SunitaBishnoi (PW9). The medical file stated that the prosecutrix’ssecondary sexual characters were well developed, and that she was undergoing her menstrual period at the time. No external injuries were noted on her body, and the hymen was found to be of healed ruptured kind, admitting one finger easily. There were no injuries on the perineum or thighs.

To determine her age, the prosecutrix was referred to Radiologist Dr. Pawan Jain (PW2). based totally on radiological exam, he opined in Exb. PE that her age changed into between 14 to sixteen years, noting that the upper end of the radius was fused but the lower end was not, and the upper end of the fibula was also not fused.

during the research, the school certificate (Exb. ps) was produced by GopalKrishan (PW11), Headmaster of government middle school, Jagan, confirming the prosecutrix’s date of birth as 10 January 1980. therefore, as per the record, she was 15 years old at the time of the incident in June 1995.

After completing the investigation, the police filed a fee-sheet against Om Prakash, Kartar Singh, and Chhoti under Sections 376, 342, 506 read with 34 IPC. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, the trial court framed charges as follows:

•against Om Prakash and Kartar Singh: under section 376 IPC (rape)

•against Chhoti: under section 109 IPC (abetment of rape)

All 3 accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

during the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including:

• PW1 Dr. Dale Singh
• PW2 Dr. Pawan Jain (Radiologist)
• PW3Inderjit
• PW4 H.C. Ramphal
• PW5 the prosecutrix
• PW6Chando (mother of prosecutrix)
• PW7 ASI Krishan Lal
• PW8 SI Jaipal Singh (Investigating Officer)
• PW9 Dr. SunitaBishnoi (medical Officer)
• PW10Baldev Singh
• PW11GopalKrishan (school headmaster)

The defence of the accused was that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. particularly, Kartar Singh claimed that the prosecutrix had undergone an abortion at a private nursing home, and she suspected that he (Kartar Singh) had spread this information within the village, leading to the alleged false implication.

The trial court rejected the defence, accepted the prosecution evidence as credible and honest, and convicted:

• Om Prakash and Kartar Singh under section 376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape)
• Chhoti under section 109 IPC (abetment of rape)

Therefore, the trial court awarded the following sentences:

• Om Prakash and Kartar Singh: 10 years rigorous imprisonment and excellent of ₹10,000 each
• Chhoti: 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹10,000

The convicts filed appeals before the Punjab and Haryana high court, which were dismissed on 30 July 2008, asserting the convictions and sentences. the matter was then brought in appeal before the supreme court of India, leading to the present judgment

Issues of the Case

1. whether or not the conviction under section 376(2)(g) IPC against Om Prakash and Kartar Singh was sustainable?
2. whether Chhoti, a woman, could be convicted under section 109 IPC for abetment of rape?
3. whether the delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR affected the credibility of the case?
4. whether the sentence offered become immoderate?

Judgment

The supreme court, after hearing the parties and analyzing the trial courtroom and high court facts, added its judgment through Justice Prafulla C. Pant, dismissing all three appeals filed by the accused persons Om Prakash, Kartar Singh, andChhoti and upholding their convictions and sentences under the Indian Penal Code.

The court noted that there has been a delay of 20 days in lodging the first facts record (FIR). however, it held that the reason offered was satisfactory. The prosecutrix (PW5), a minor girl, had been threatened with death and waited for her mom (PW6) to return from her maternal home before revealing the incident. The courtroom found this explanation reasonable and natural, especially considering the trauma and fear faced by a15-year-old rape victim. The statements of the prosecutrix and her mother corroborated each other and stood the test of cross-examination.

The courtroom reaffirmed that the evidence of the prosecutrix was natural, consistent, and trustworthy. Her version of events was supported by medical evidence, and not anything significant emerged in go-examination to discredit her. The courtroom rejected the accused’s plea of false implication due to enmity, observing that there has been no material or credible evidence to assist such a defence.

The court concluded that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident, based on:

• Radiological exam (showcase PE by way of PW2 – Dr. Pawan Jain) indicating an age variety of 14 to 16 years
• School certificates (showcase ps by PW11 – Headmaster Gopal Krishan), which showed the date of birth as 10.01.1980, making her 15 years old in June 1995

As such, the courtroom held that consent was legally immaterial, and the sexual act constituted statutory rape under the law.

It was argued on behalf of Chhoti that she, being a female, couldn’t be convicted for abetment of rape under section 109 IPC. The defence relied on  supreme court decisions:

particularly, it was contended that mere failure to protect the victim or passive presence could not amount to abetment.

however, the court clarified that:

• Chhoti was not convicted under segment 376 IPC, nor under section 376 read with section 34 IPC.
• Her conviction was solely under section 109 IPC, based onintentional helping asdefined inSection 107 IPC.

The courtroom held that there was positive evidence that Chhoti had lured the victim into her residence under a false pretext of getting lassi, knowing that Om Prakash and Kartar Singh were inside and ready to commit rape. The room was bolted, and the prosecutrix was detained for an hour. The incident occurred inside Chhoti’s home, and her actions were found to constitute intentional aiding of the commission of rape, falling within the third clause of section 107 IPC.

The court agreed with both the trial court and high court that Chhoti’s role met the legal standard of abetment, and her conviction under section 109 IPC turned into legally legitimate.

The counsel for the appellants pleaded for leniency in sentence, specially requesting that Chhoti’s sentence be decreased to the period already undergone.

The court rejected this plea, observing that the sentence presented by the trial courtroom and confirmed by the high court was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the active role played by each of the accused:

All 3 appeals have been dismissed.

• The convictions and sentences of Om Prakash and Kartar Singh under Section376(2)(g) IPC (gang rape) were upheld.
• The conviction and sentence of Chhoti under Section 109 IPC (abetment) was additionally upheld.

Reasoning

1. Delay in FIR: The courtroom held that the 20-day delay in reporting the incident was satisfactorily explained. The victim (PW5) waited for her mom to return to disclose the incident. This explanation was corroborated via her mother (PW6) and found credible by both the trial and appellate courts.
2. Credibility of victim’s Testimony: The victim’s account became consistent and natural. cross-examination did not reveal any material inconsistencies or reason for false implication.
3. Minor’s Age established: Radiological report and school certificate confirmed the victim’s age to be 15 years, making consent legally irrelevant.
4. Role of Chhoti: The court relied on section 109 IPC read with section 107 IPC, specifically the clause of intentional aiding. Chhoti lured the victim into her to the house in which the offence took place. The residence belonged to her and her husband. The court held that this amounted to abetment under section 109 IPC.
5. Legal Precedents:

• Priya Patel v. state of M.P. (2006) 6 SCC 263 and Kulwant Singh v. state of Bihar (2007) 15 SCC 670 were cited, but the court distinguished them, holding that Chhoti was not convicted under section 376 IPC but under section 109 for aiding the offence.
• The court affirmed that intentional helping, as described under section 107 IPC, is sufficient for a conviction under section 109.
• Sentence: The court found the sentence just and proper, and declined to reduce Chhoti’s sentence to the period already undergone.

Conclusion

The Supreme court of India, after carefully considering the arguments of each sides, thoroughly analyzing the facts of the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and reviewing the proof which include the stories of the prosecutrix and her mother, medical and radiological reports, and school records, came to a express finding that there was no merit in the appeals filed by Om Prakash, Kartar Singh, and Chhoti.

The court held that the delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix, who was a minor and were threatened with death. It affirmed that the testimony of the prosecutrix was natural, consistent, and trustworthy, and no credible defence was put forth via the accused to displace the prosecution’s case.

The supreme court held that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, making her consent legally irrelevant. This was supported by both radiological evidence and school records, proving her age to be about 15 years at the time of the incident.

The court also addressed the legal problem raised by Chhoti, who argued that a woman could not be convicted for abetment of rape. but, the court clarified that she was not convicted under section 376 IPC or segment 376 r/w 34 IPC, however instead under section 109IPC for intentional assisting of the crime, that’s surely included under section 107 IPC. The court emphasised that her act of luring the minor female into her house under false pretence, where her husband and another guy were present and prepared to commit rape, amounted to active and intentional aid, and as a result constituted abetment.

that the sentence offered via the trial court and affirmed by the high court was just and appropriate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

ultimately, the Supreme court dismissed all 3 criminal appeals and directed that all three convicts Om Prakash , Kartar Singh, and Chhoti who had been granted bail earlier by the court, must be taken into custody right now to serve the remainder The court additionally rejected the plea for reduction of sentence on behalf of Chhoti, concluding 

of their sentences.

References 

1. Priya Patel v. state of M.P. (2006) 6 SCC 263 

2.  Kulwant Singh v. state of Bihar (2007) 15 SCC 670

This article is written by Ananya Rajshekhar from RV University and an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.