Supreme Court acquits accused in rape case due to insufficient evidence of prosecutrix’s age: Manak Chand vs. State of Haryana (2023) INSC 959

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 959
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul J., C.T. Ravikumar J., Sudhanshu Dhulia J. (authored the judgment).
Can a conviction for rape be upheld when the evidence regarding the victim’s age is contradictory and unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the determination of the prosecutrix’s age was central to the charge of rape. The Court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the importance of conclusive proof of the victim’s minority status and the need for a fair trial. The judgment was authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and C.T. Ravikumar concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident reported on 23rd October 2000, where Gian Chand, the father-in-law of the appellant’s elder brother, Pappu, filed a First Information Report (FIR). The FIR stated that on 2nd September 2000, Pappu had requested Gian Chand to send his younger daughter (the prosecutrix) to his house to care for her sister, who had recently given birth. The prosecutrix, allegedly 15 years old at the time, was sent to her sister’s home. More than a month later, she returned home and told her mother that the appellant, Manak Chand @ Mani, Pappu’s younger brother, had raped her multiple times. Initially, the families attempted to resolve the matter through marriage between the prosecutrix and the appellant. However, when the appellant’s family rejected the marriage proposal on 23rd October 2000, Gian Chand lodged an FIR under Sections 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station City Dabwali.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld this conviction in appeal. The Supreme Court, however, found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offense. The Court also noted discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s testimony and the medical evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the offense of rape. At the time of the alleged incident in 2000, the age of consent was sixteen years. This was later amended in 2013 by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act No.13 of 2013, raising the age of consent to eighteen years. The determination of the prosecutrix’s age was therefore crucial in deciding whether the act was rape, as consent from a minor is considered immaterial under the law. The court also considered the principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case is similar to that of an injured witness, and a conviction can be based on her sole testimony if it inspires confidence. However, the court also noted the need for caution and corroboration when the testimony does not inspire confidence.

Arguments

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the prosecutrix was a minor (13 and a half years old) at the time of the incident, based on her date of birth recorded in the school register as 04.04.1987.
• They contended that the prosecutrix’s testimony, along with medical evidence showing a ruptured hymen, was sufficient to prove the offense of rape.
• The prosecution emphasized that even if the prosecutrix consented, her consent would be immaterial due to her being under the age of consent, which was sixteen at the time of the incident.

Defense’s Arguments:

• The defense argued that the school register was not a reliable source for determining the prosecutrix’s age, as the date of birth was not based on information from her parents and the transfer certificate was not produced.
• They pointed out that the medical report indicated the prosecutrix was a “well-built adult female” with developed secondary sexual characteristics, suggesting she was older than claimed by the prosecution.
• The defense highlighted the delay in reporting the incident and the fact that the FIR was lodged only after the marriage proposal was rejected, casting doubt on the prosecutrix’s credibility.
• They contended that the medical report showed no signs of force, suggesting the possibility of a consensual act.

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense innovatively questioned the authenticity of the school register and highlighted the contradictions within the prosecution’s evidence, successfully casting doubt on the prosecutrix’s age and the claim of rape.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had successfully proven that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of the alleged incident.
2. Whether the act committed by the appellant constituted rape under Section 375 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384* to emphasize the caution needed when relying solely on a prosecutrix’s testimony and the need for corroboration if the testimony does not inspire confidence.
• The court also referred to Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2006) 10 SCC 92* to reiterate that the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, but if the testimony is improbable, the court should not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.
• The Supreme Court cited Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133* to highlight the need to protect the accused against false implications.
• The court used Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988) Supp SCC 604* to state that the date of birth in a school register has no evidentiary value unless the person making the entry or providing the date of birth is examined.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily driven by the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the prosecutrix’s age at the time of the alleged offense. The Court highlighted the following points:

• The school register, the primary evidence for the prosecutrix’s age, was deemed unreliable as it was not based on parental information and the transfer certificate was not produced.
• The medical report indicated that the prosecutrix was a “well-built adult female” with developed secondary sexual characteristics, contradicting the claim of her being a minor.
• The doctor refrained from giving an opinion on the age of the prosecutrix, but the report recorded her age as sixteen, based on information from her mother.
• The prosecution did not conduct a bone ossification test, which could have provided a more reliable determination of age.
• The delay in reporting the incident and the fact that the FIR was lodged only after the marriage proposal was rejected cast doubt on the prosecutrix’s credibility.
• The medical report showed no signs of force, suggesting the possibility of a consensual act.
• The court emphasized the principle that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished, and the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor, and that the act was non-consensual.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the prosecutrix was a minor and that the act was non-consensual. However, due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the contradictions in the prosecution’s case, the Court rejected these interpretations. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this instance.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of the alleged incident, and that the act was without her consent. The court noted that the school register was not a reliable source for determining the prosecutrix’s age, and the medical evidence suggested she was older than claimed by the prosecution. The court also pointed out that the FIR was lodged only after the marriage proposal was rejected, casting doubt on the prosecutrix’s credibility. The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the need for conclusive evidence before convicting an accused.

The Court stated, “In our adversarial system of criminal jurisprudence, the guiding principle shall always be the Blackstone ratio which holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished.”

The Court also stated, “The evidence, as to the age or even rape has not been examined properly by the Trial Court as well as the High Court. Courts must examine each evidence with open mind dispassionately as an accused is to be presumed innocent till proved guilty.”

Further, the Court observed, “Under these facts, and on the weight of the evidence placed before the Trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that as regarding the age of the prosecutrix, no definite conclusion could have been made. The prosecution has not successfully proved that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, and therefore the benefit ought to have been given to the appellant.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was authored by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and C.T. Ravikumar concurring.

The decision highlights the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving sexual offenses where the victim’s age is a crucial factor. It also underscores the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case could potentially impact future cases involving similar issues of age determination and credibility of witnesses.

There were no new doctrines or legal principles introduced in this case. The Court primarily applied existing legal principles related to evidence, burden of proof, and the age of consent.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence to prove the age of the prosecutrix in cases of sexual assault, especially when the age of consent is a critical factor.
• School registers alone are not sufficient proof of age unless the person who made the entry or provided the date of birth is examined.
• Medical evidence should be carefully examined, and a bone ossification test may be necessary for accurate age determination.
• The testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence, and any doubts or inconsistencies should be carefully considered.
• The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough and fair trial, with a focus on ensuring that the prosecution meets its burden of proof. It could lead to more stringent scrutiny of evidence related to age in similar cases and may prompt courts to seek additional corroborative evidence when the testimony of the prosecutrix is not entirely convincing. The case also highlights the importance of conducting a bone ossification test when age is a crucial factor in determining guilt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the acquittal of the appellant, Manak Chand @ Mani, and ordered that his bail bonds be discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the prosecution fails to conclusively prove the minority of the prosecutrix, especially when the evidence is contradictory and unreliable, the accused should be acquitted of the charges of rape. The Supreme Court did not change the previous position of law but reinforced the existing principles of evidence and burden of proof in criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Manak Chand vs. State of Haryana underscores the critical importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving sexual offenses. The Court’s acquittal of the accused highlights that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that doubts regarding the age of the prosecutrix and the circumstances of the alleged offense must be resolved in favor of the accused. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for a fair trial and the protection of the rights of the accused.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Rape, Section 376 IPC, Age of Consent, Evidence Law, Criminal Procedure

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Manak Chand vs. State of Haryana case?

A: The main issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged rape, and whether the act constituted rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Q: Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused in this case?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The school register was deemed unreliable, and the medical report suggested she was older than claimed. Additionally, the court found no evidence of force, suggesting the possibility of a consensual act.

Q: What is the significance of the school register in determining the age of the prosecutrix?

A: The Supreme Court held that the school register alone is not sufficient proof of age unless the person who made the entry or provided the date of birth is examined. In this case, the register was deemed unreliable because the date of birth was not based on information from the prosecutrix’s parents and the transfer certificate was not produced.

Q: What is a bone ossification test, and why was it important in this case?

A: A bone ossification test is a medical test used to determine a person’s age by examining the development of their bones. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution should have conducted this test for a more reliable determination of the prosecutrix’s age, especially since the other evidence was contradictory.

Q: What is the legal significance of the age of consent in India?

A: At the time of the alleged incident, the age of consent was sixteen years. This means that if the prosecutrix was under sixteen, her consent to sexual intercourse would be immaterial, and the act would be considered rape. The age of consent was later raised to eighteen years in 2013.

Q: What does the Supreme Court mean by “the Blackstone ratio”?

A: The Blackstone ratio is a legal principle that states it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished. The Supreme Court invoked this principle to emphasize the need to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that the prosecution proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment highlights the need for conclusive evidence in cases of sexual assault, especially when the age of consent is a factor. It also underscores the need for a fair trial and the protection of the rights of the accused. It may lead to more stringent scrutiny of evidence related to age in similar cases and may prompt courts to seek additional corroborative evidence when the testimony of the prosecutrix is not entirely convincing.