Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 22 September 2008
Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format.
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Can a conviction for rape be altered if the evidence suggests a different, less severe offense? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Premiya @ Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan. The court examined the evidence and determined that while the modesty of the victim was indeed outraged, the evidence did not conclusively prove rape. This blog post summarizes the case, the arguments presented, and the court’s reasoning in altering the conviction.
The bench comprised Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma.
Case Background
On August 26, 1987, the prosecutrix filed a report stating that on the preceding day, August 25, 1987, at approximately 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., while returning to village Biradhwal from Bhinya Raika’s field, the accused, Premiya, accosted her. Premiya allegedly threw her to the ground, removed his “Paijama,” lifted her “Ghaghra,” and committed rape. The prosecutrix claimed that when she resisted, Premiya struck her eye and threatened to kill her if she made any noise. Her aunt-in-law, Mst. Chandkauri (PW.2), intervened, causing Premiya to flee. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on August 26, 1987, at 2:00 PM. Following the investigation, the accused was charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to which he pleaded not guilty.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 25, 1987, 9:00-9:30 a.m. | Alleged rape incident occurred. |
| August 26, 1987, 1:30 p.m. | The prosecutrix filed the First Information Report (FIR). |
| August 26, 1987, 2:00 p.m. | Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted. |
| N/A | Trial concluded with the trial court convicting Premiya. |
| N/A | The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. |
| September 22, 2008 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment, altering the conviction. |
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of two sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 376 IPC: This section defines the offense of rape and prescribes the punishment for it. The court examined whether the act committed by the accused met the legal definition of rape.
- Section 354 IPC: This section deals with the offense of outraging the modesty of a woman. The court considered whether the actions of the accused, even if not amounting to rape, constituted an offense under this section.
Section 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person again st whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
- Absence of injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix.
- Admitted enmity between PW-2 (Chandkauri, the aunt-in-law) and the accused, as affirmed by Laxman, the husband of the prosecutrix.
Respondent-State’s Arguments:
- Supported the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court.
- Relied on the evidence of the victim and Chandkauri (PW-2), who was stated to be an eye witness.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The judgment does not explicitly list the issues framed by the Supreme Court. However, based on the content, the primary issue can be inferred as:
- Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (rape), or whether the conviction should be altered to Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (outraging modesty).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt With It |
|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports a conviction under Section 376 IPC (rape) or Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty). | The Court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the prosecutrix’s testimony did not specifically describe the act of rape but rather “loose fondling.” Therefore, the Court altered the conviction from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC. |
Authorities
The court referred to the following cases:
- State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2003 (8) Supreme 364): Cited for the principle of not indicating the name of the victim in judgments to prevent social victimization.
- Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006 (3) SCC 771): Cited for the principle of not indicating the name of the victim in judgments to prevent social victimization.
- State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63): Cited to emphasize that there is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases under Section 354 IPC.
Judgment
The Supreme Court altered the conviction of the accused from Section 376 IPC to Section 354 IPC. Given that the accused had already served nearly two years of the sentence and the occurrence dated back to 1987, the custodial sentence was limited to the period already undergone. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in custody for any other case.