STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MANGO RAM, 2000

CITATION	AIR 2000 SC 2798
DATE	AUGUST 24, 2000
COURT NAME	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PETITIONER	STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
RESPONDENT.	MANGO RAM
JUDGES	DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ.R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

This case presents the administration of justice at the appellate stage where the Sessions court, relying on the fallacious findings, gave a decision which dealt with a severe offence such as Rape u/s 375 of IPC, with unreasonable care. The Supreme Court laid a precedent and principles which must be applied with respect to establishing consent, emphasizing the statements given by the victim where it is corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. The appellate court reversed the stance of the Sessions court, which was later confirmed by the High Court, upholding justice as to the commission of the offence but showing leniency in terms of penal provisions, u/s 376 of IPC, as was present at that time. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The prosecutrix was the eldest daughter of a small agriculturist, Jagia Ram, who resides with his wife, Smt. Pinji, and children in a village near Kuthed. Jagia Ram is a native of the neighbouring village of Bhadhad.
2. On 17.4.1993, Smt. Pinji asked her daughter to go to the village Bhadhad and get the plough kept in the house of Jagia Ram. Prosecutrix left for Bhadhad and respondent-accused, who was his brother-in-law, aged about 17 years, also accompanied her.
3. When Prosecutrix entered her father’s house at Bhadhad, accused followed her and caught her from behind and committed a sexual act (Rape). The prosecutrix told her father about the incident, who reported the matter to the police.
4. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the ingredients of the offence of rape had not been established and that the prosecutrix must have been above the age of 16 years. Therefore, it was a consensual sexual act.
5. An appeal was filed before a single-judge High Court by the State and the findings by the trial court were upheld, where medical evidence did not expressly point out the commission of the alleged offence on the prosecutrix.
6. The above findings were challenged before the Supreme Court by way of appeal by the State.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of commission of the act, was above 16 years as established by the trial court?
2. Whether the act was consensual, considering the circumstances of the case, does the submission amount to a valid consent or not?
3. Whether the evidence purported in the medical examination was duly considered by the Trial court to establish the alleged offence?

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER

1. It was contended by the appellant that the findings of the Trial court, which the High Court later confirmed, are erroneous and unsustainable. There were sufficient medical evidences to prove that the offence of Rape was committed by the accused, there was no consent on the part of the Prosecutrix as she was overpowered by the accused and her age was below 16 years at the time.
2. The medical examination conducted on the accused and the Prosecutrix, along with the recorded statements of Prosecution Witnesses, and the place of commission of offence corroborates the same about the age and consent of the Prosecutrix. Hence Rape was committed by the accused.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT

1. The respondent-accused contended that in the very same medical examination no spermatozoa in the clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were found indicating that the accused had not committed any sexual act.
2. There were no marks of violence over the body parts and genitals of the prosecutrix and she never deposed anything about the extent of penetration. Hence, it may be only an attempt to outrage the modesty; also inferring consent from the above-stated evidences. It is a false case filed to get the property of the respondent-accused.
3. The Counsel for the respondent further argued that any order for the sentencing after this long will propagate disharmony in the society and will further deteriorate the close familial relations between the accused and the prosecutrix.

JUDGEMENT

After careful consideration of both the rival contentions, the Supreme Court found that the findings of the Sessions Court on which it based its decision are erroneous and incorrect and upheld the respondent-accused guilty of Rape u/s 375 of IPC,1860. While reversing the prior decision, the court noted:

1. The court decided against the previous stand on the age of the Prosecutrix, stating that in all probability, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence was about fourteen years, and the said findings on her being above the age of sixteen years by the Sessions court is frail and unsupported by the evidences presented.
2. Thereafter, even if the Sessions Judge was of the view that the Prosecutrix was of age above sixteen years, the reasons attributed by the learned Sessions. Judge to prove that she had given consent for the sexual act are not true. The evidence is to be considered as a whole to establish valid consent and the current circumstances of the case, when taken into account as a whole, indicates that there was resistance by the prosecutrix and there was no voluntary participation by her for the sexual act.
3. The court stated, “Submission of the body under the fear of terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between the resistance and assent.” Hence, consent is to be determined after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, and in consonance with that, the court upheld the Sessions court’s finding of consent on the part of Prosecutrix to be baseless.
4. The court rejected the contention of the respondent that the act was at most only an attempt to outrage the modesty of the girl based on no marks of violence and the prosecutrix not deposing herself anything about penetration along with absence of spermatozoa in the clothes worn by the prosecutrix and the accused.
5. The court was of the view that oral evidence given by the Prosecutrix, which is corroborated by strong medical evidence, and other items of evidence, along with absence of consent, the offence of Rape has been committed by the accused.
6. The accused is liable for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC,1860. While taking a lenient view on the punishment of crime, the sentence already undergone by the accused was deemed enough to uphold justice.

REASONING

1. The court’s reasoning to study all the evidence as a whole and not in isolation to certain discrepancies, to test the validity of the findings made by the Sessions court, was primarily focused on re-examining all the medical evidence in light of the oral evidence given by the Prosecutrix.
2. The question of age was addressed after giving due consideration to the evidence in that regard, i.e., PW 2 Dr. Veena Sehgal, who examined the prosecutrix and after taking note of physical features stated that the prosecutrix must be of the age between 13 to 14 years. PW 3 Dr. Lokender Badotra, who was a Senior Medical Officer (Dental), opined prosecutrix to be about 13 years of age and issued a certificate. PW 13, Medial Officer-cum-Radiologist, based on X-Ray examination of prosecutrix, stated that the age of the prosecutrix must be within 14 to 16 years. The family history showed that she was born in the year 1979, which further strengthened the court to conclusively establish the age of the prosecutrix to be below sixteen years as opposed to the findings of the Sessions Judge.
3. The court negativized all the reasons given by the Sessions court to prove consent. The prosecutrix deposed that she resisted the accused by scratching him, but no nail marks were found on the body of the accused. The court duly noted that the accused was examined on 20.4.1993 i.e. three days after the incident, and to that consequence the marks or signs of minor injuries could be easily overlooked and hence hold little significance.
4. The oral evidence of the prosecutrix on the sequence of events that happened, highlighting the forceful nature of the act and subsequent conduct, where she went back and immediately told her father about the event, which goes against the interest of the accused. Hence the court took all the circumstances as a whole to establish that she resisted the attack and the accused from committing rape on her, and mere submission of body to the onslaught cannot be the basis of consent. It was an un-consensual act.
5. The court carefully examined the medical certificate issued by PW 2 Dr. Veena Seghal, which indicated laceration of the hymen at 6′ o clock position and clotting of blood at the vaginal orifice. It is unknown whether the clothes were washed before the chemical examination, which makes the absence of spermatozoa a frail ground to defend the accused. A blood-stained piece of cloth was recovered from the place of incident. The statement of PW 2 Dr. Veena Sehgal, about no history of menstruation weakens the observation by the Session court on menstruation to be the cause of blood stains. All the medical evidence along with the statements of the prosecutrix gives enough ground to prove the act of Rape.
6. The court, for taking a lenient stance on the sentencing, reasoned that due to the relation between the accused and the prosecutrix, and as both were immature teenagers with an age difference of 2-3 years. The evidence also indicated no signs of violence on any body part of the prosecutrix, and the incident that happened in 1993, the sentence that the accused has already undergone was found to be enough, also keeping in mind the rekindled harmony among the villagers and the respective families.

CONCLUSION

It is a landmark case by the Supreme Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction, where it broadly interpreted the meaning of consent within Section 375 of IPC and reversed the acquittal by the lower courts based on the statements made by the prosecutrix along with due consideration to the corroborative evidence. The court observed that the matter of Rape is of very severe nature and the Sessions court took it very lightly, relying on minute inconsistencies in the evidence. The same was reiterated by the court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011), the consent must be voluntary, and mere submission in the fear does not amount to valid consent. Each case must be dealt with sensitivity, the evidence and testimony of the victim should be construed as a whole to establish the offence.

Although it must be noted that after the amendments made in 2013 the penal provisions for Rape is made stricter especially in case of rape against a women below the age of sixteen years. It expanded the scope of Rape and importance of unequivocal consent. The discussed judgement was nevertheless a welcoming step towards the nuances and severity in Rape cases.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1040991/
2. IPC, 1860
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal AIR 2011 SC 697
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371348595_Indian_Journal_of_Law_and_Legal_Research_A_HISTORICAL_REVIEW_OF_SECTION_376_OF_IPC_A_HARSH_REALITY_AND_INSERTION_OF_NEW_SECTIONS_WITH_LANDMARK_JUDGEMENTS_Introduction

This article is written by Anjali Barmola 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.