Supreme Court Convicts Accused in Child Rape Case, Overturning High Court Acquittal: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh (28 November 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 1049

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a conviction for rape be sustained solely on the testimony of a child victim? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case where the High Court had overturned a trial court’s conviction, emphasizing the importance of a victim’s testimony and the limited role of medical evidence in such cases. This judgment highlights the sensitivity required when dealing with cases of sexual assault against children.

Case Background

The prosecutrix (PW-4), a 9-year-old girl studying in Class III, was living with her aunt and cousin, the respondent-accused. On 4th March 2010, she was reluctant to return to her aunt’s house after school. Upon inquiry by her teachers, Pooja Mahajan (PW-1) and Ritubala (PW-2), she revealed that the respondent-accused had been making her sleep with him and sexually assaulting her for about three years. She stated that he would remove her clothes and engage in sexual intercourse with her. The school teacher, Pooja Mahajan (PW-1), then informed the president of the Gram Panchayat (PW-3), who also heard the prosecutrix’s account.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the respondent-accused based on the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-4) and medical evidence. However, the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the medical evidence was not conclusive and that the prosecutrix’s testimony did not inspire confidence. The High Court acquitted the respondent-accused. The State of Himachal Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines and penalizes the offense of rape. The section states:

“376. Punishment for rape.—(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. (2) Whoever, being a police officer, commits rape— (a) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or (b) in the premises of any police station; or (c) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or (d) on a woman in the premises of any jail or other place of custody, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to imprisonment for fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than ten years.”

Arguments

Appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The State argued that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-4), who was a young girl and had no reason to falsely implicate the respondent-accused.
• The State contended that the High Court erred in reversing the conviction, as the testimony of the prosecutrix was credible and the medical evidence did not negate the occurrence of sexual intercourse.
• The State emphasized that the absence of injury does not disprove sexual assault, especially in cases involving children.

Respondent (Amicus Curiae):

• The amicus curiae argued that the High Court was correct in giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused.
• The amicus curiae submitted that the non-examination of the aunt of the prosecutrix (PW-4) was detrimental to the prosecution’s case.
• The amicus curiae contended that the medical evidence was inconclusive and did not support the prosecution’s claim of forceful sexual intercourse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution story, as alleged, inspires the confidence of the court on the evidence adduced?
2. Whether the prosecutrix, is a witness worthy of reliance?
3. Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix who has been a victim of rape stands in need of corroboration and, if so, whether such corroboration is available in the facts of the present case?
4. What was the age of the prosecutrix?
5. Whether she was a consenting party to the crime?
6. Whether there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

On the credibility of the prosecutrix’s testimony:

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 384] – Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital and should be relied upon unless there are compelling reasons to doubt it. The court also noted that minor discrepancies should not be a ground to reject an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

On the nature of doubt in criminal jurisprudence:

• State of Rajasthan v. N.K. The Accused [(2000) 5 SCC 30] – Supreme Court of India: The court emphasized that doubt must be a reasonable doubt, not an excuse for acquittal. Unmerited acquittals encourage criminals and the courts have to be more sensitive while dealing with charges of sexual assault on women.

On the non-necessity of corroboration:

• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217] – Supreme Court of India: The court observed that refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s conviction. The Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-4) was credible and did not require corroboration. The Court also emphasized that the absence of medical evidence of injury does not disprove sexual assault, especially in cases involving children.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 384]*: The court followed this authority, reiterating that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital and should be relied upon unless there are compelling reasons to doubt it.
• State of Rajasthan v. N.K. The Accused [(2000) 5 SCC 30]*: The court followed this authority, emphasizing that doubt must be a reasonable doubt, not an excuse for acquittal.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217]*: The court followed this authority, observing that refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility of the prosecutrix’s testimony, the absence of any motive for her to falsely implicate the accused, and the understanding that medical evidence is not always conclusive in cases of sexual assault, particularly with children. The court also considered the trial court’s assessment of the victim’s testimony, which had the benefit of observing her demeanor.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The prosecutrix, a young girl of nine years, had no reason to falsely implicate her cousin.
• The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the prosecutrix, found her testimony to be convincing and reliable.
• The medical evidence of the absence of injury did not negate the possibility of sexual intercourse, especially considering the child’s age and the possibility of slight penetration.
• The High Court erred in reversing the conviction based on the absence of conclusive medical evidence and a perceived lack of confidence in the prosecutrix’s testimony.

The court emphasized that “The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence.” It further stated that “Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances.” The court also noted that “The absence of injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix can be of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the medical evidence was inconclusive and the prosecutrix’s testimony was unreliable. The Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court’s findings of fact, as the Trial Court had the opportunity to observe and hear the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s decision was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside.

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a child victim of sexual assault can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence.
• Corroboration of a child victim’s testimony is not a legal requirement but a matter of prudence.
• The absence of medical evidence of injury does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault, especially in cases involving children.
• Courts must be sensitive and responsible when dealing with cases of sexual assault on women and children.
• Minor discrepancies in the victim’s statement should not be a ground to reject an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender to custody within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence. Failure to do so would result in the accused being taken into custody. The court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary action.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence. This judgment also clarifies that medical evidence is not always conclusive and that the absence of injury does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault. The ruling emphasizes the need for courts to be sensitive and responsible when dealing with cases of sexual assault on women and children, and that minor discrepancies in the victim’s statement should not be a ground to reject an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the testimony of a child victim, if credible, is sufficient for conviction and does not require corroboration, and that medical evidence is not a conclusive factor in determining sexual assault.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manga Singh overturned the High Court’s acquittal and restored the Trial Court’s conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court emphasized that the testimony of a child victim can be sufficient for conviction and that the absence of medical evidence of injury does not disprove sexual assault. This decision underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable victims and ensuring justice in cases of sexual assault.