Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Rape Case Involving Mentally Retarded Victim: Chaman Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 3 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 985

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a rape case, especially when the victim has a mental disability? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Chaman Lal vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh. This case revolves around the conviction of an accused for rape and criminal intimidation of a mentally challenged woman, where the High Court overturned the trial court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the vulnerability of individuals with mental disabilities and the need to protect them from exploitation. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began with an FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, alleging that his daughter was pregnant. The prosecutrix had informed her mother that the accused had sexually assaulted her forcefully about three to four months prior, when she used to graze goats and cattle in the jungle. She further stated that the accused had threatened her not to disclose the incident. Due to fear and mental weakness, she did not reveal the incident to anyone, including her mother.

Following the FIR, the prosecutrix underwent medical examinations, which confirmed a 31-week pregnancy. Her age was recorded as 19 years, and she was noted to be mentally retarded. Further medical examinations were conducted at the Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla, and the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh. On 19 June 2008, she gave birth to a female child. DNA tests confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child. Subsequently, the accused was arrested, and a chargesheet was filed against him under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The trial court acquitted the accused, primarily citing the delay in filing the FIR and the prosecutrix’s mental capacity. The State appealed this decision, leading to the High Court’s intervention.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the accused, primarily focusing on the delay in lodging the FIR and questioning the prosecutrix’s mental unsoundness. The court reasoned that the prosecutrix was not mentally unsound enough to not understand the consequences of her actions and what was happening.

The State appealed to the High Court, which, after re-evaluating the evidence, particularly the medical evidence, reversed the trial court’s decision. The High Court concluded that the prosecutrix had an IQ of 62, indicating mild mental retardation, and was not capable of understanding the implications of the sexual assault.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the offense of rape. Specifically, the court considered clause fifthly, which states that a man commits rape if he has sexual intercourse with a woman with her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent due to unsoundness of mind.
  
  “a man is said to commit rape”, if with her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section prescribes the punishment for the offense of rape.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Accused):

• Delay in FIR: The appellant argued that the four-month delay in registering the FIR from the alleged incident date was a significant factor that should have led to the acquittal by the trial court.

• Vengeful Act: The appellant claimed that the FIR was a vengeful act, as the prosecutrix’s father admitted that the accused had offered to take care of the child but refused to marry the prosecutrix. The appellant was already married with children, making marriage to the prosecutrix impossible.

• Awareness of Pregnancy: The appellant contended that it was unbelievable that the prosecutrix’s parents were unaware of her pregnancy, given that she was examined a day after the FIR and found to be carrying an eight-month-old fetus.

• Mental Retardation: The appellant disputed the claim that the prosecutrix suffered from mild mental retardation. It was highlighted that two psychiatrists gave conflicting accounts of the language the prosecutrix knew, raising doubts about the accuracy of their assessments.

• Contradictions in Testimony: The appellant pointed out material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecutrix, her mother, sister, and father. The prosecutrix stated she learned of her pregnancy from family members, while her family claimed she informed them.

• Reliance on Medical Evidence: The appellant argued that the High Court’s reliance on the medical evidence of PW22 was misplaced, as the trial court had correctly observed that the prosecutrix was capable of understanding her welfare and was intelligent.

• The appellant cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna v. State of Karnataka [(2014) 15 SCC 596], arguing that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal, which was based on a plausible view of the evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments (State):

• Jurisdiction of High Court: The State argued that the High Court, as the first appellate court, was within its jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a correct conclusion, particularly given the medical evidence.

• Delay in FIR: The State submitted that the High Court had already considered the delay in lodging the FIR. The accused had taken undue advantage of the prosecutrix’s mental condition, and any contradictions should not benefit the accused but rather the victim, who was not in a position to understand the gravity of the sexual assault.

• Conduct of Accused: The State emphasized the accused’s conduct, noting that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, resulting in her pregnancy and childbirth. Despite this, he denied everything in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), not even claiming it was consensual.

• Minimum Sentence: The State argued that the minimum sentence for the offense under Section 376 of the IPC is seven years, which the High Court had already imposed. Given the sexual assault on a mentally challenged person, no leniency should be shown.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and thereby convicting the accused?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Scope of Interference in Appeals Against Acquittal:

• Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC. It emphasized that the appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal where two views are possible, but it can interfere if the trial court’s view is perverse or unsustainable.
• Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227]: The Privy Council outlined the considerations for appellate courts, including the trial judge’s views on witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, and the benefit of doubt.
• Tulsiram Kanu v. State [AIR 1954 SC 1]: The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup.
• Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 216]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for interference in acquittal appeals.
• M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC 200]: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the trial court’s view.
• Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar [(1970) 2 SCC 450]: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles for appellate interference.
• Sambasivan v. State of Kerala [(1998) 5 SCC 412]: The Supreme Court discussed the appellate court’s duty to ensure the trial court’s approach was not illegal.
• Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P [(2002) 4 SCC 85]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for appellate review in acquittal cases.
• State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [(2007) 3 SCC 755]: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for compelling reasons to interfere with an acquittal.
• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]: The Supreme Court clarified the extensive powers of an appellate court in reviewing evidence in acquittal cases.
• Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P [(2008) 10 SCC 450]: The Supreme Court reiterated that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence.
• State of Rajasthan v. Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368]: The Supreme Court stated that an acquittal should not be lightly interfered with.
• State of U.P. v. Banne [(2009) 4 SCC 271]: The Supreme Court provided illustrative circumstances for High Court interference in acquittal judgments.
• Dhanapal v. State [(2009) 10 SCC 401]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for appellate review.
• Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10]: The Supreme Court discussed when a decision can be considered perverse.
• Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka [(2019) 5 SCC 436]: The Supreme Court reviewed the scope of Section 378 of the CrPC and the High Court’s interference in acquittal appeals.
• Umedbhai Jadavbhai [(1978) 1 SCC 228]: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to re-appreciate evidence and reverse an acquittal.
• K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala [(1999) 3 SCC 309]: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to interfere with an acquittal based on an erroneous approach by the trial court.
• Atley v. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC 807]: The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court can review evidence and come to its own conclusions.
• K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1979) 1 SCC 355]: The Supreme Court stated that the High Court must interfere when the trial court rejects credible evidence for slender reasons.

On the Offence of Rape and Mental Incapacity:

• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court specifically referred to clause fifthly of Section 375, which defines rape as sexual intercourse with a woman who, due to unsoundness of mind, cannot understand the nature and consequences of her consent.
  
  “a man is said to commit rape”, if with her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Authorities Considered by the Court

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 the cited authorities to establish the principles for interfering with an order of acquittal. The court used these authorities to justify the High Court’s decision to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the trial court’s acquittal. The court also relied on the definition of rape under Section 375 of the IPC, particularly clause fifthly, to justify the conviction of the accused, given the victim’s mental incapacity.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the vulnerability of individuals with mental disabilities and the need to protect them from exploitation. The court found that the High Court had correctly re-evaluated the evidence, particularly the medical reports indicating the victim’s mild mental retardation and her inability to understand the nature and consequences of the sexual act. The Supreme Court also noted that the accused had not even claimed consent, further weakening his defense.

The Court observed that the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court’s acquittal because the trial court had failed to consider the medical evidence properly. The High Court correctly found that the victim’s IQ of 62 indicated mild mental retardation and that she was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspects of a sexual assault.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the accused had taken undue advantage of the victim’s mental condition and that such cases should be dealt with firmly.

The Court noted that even if there were some contradictions in the statements regarding the language known by the victim, those were not significant enough to discredit the medical evidence of her mental status.

The Court concluded that the High Court had rightly convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.

The Court quoted Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code to further emphasize that the definition of rape includes cases where the victim is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the act due to unsoundness of mind.

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s plea for a reduced sentence, stating that the High Court had already taken a lenient view by imposing the minimum sentence of seven years. The Court emphasized that individuals with mental disorders deserve special care and protection and should not be exploited.

“Even as per clause fifthly of Section 375 IPC, “a man is said to commit rape”, if with her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.”

“From the medical evidence, it emerges that IQ 62 falls in the category of ‘mild mental retardation’. It has also emerged that the mental status and IQ are determined on the basis of the injuries and activities. IQ of a person can be known on the basis of the questions, activities and the history of a patient.”

“A person suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness deserves special care, love and affection. They are not to be exploited. In the present case, the accused has exploited thevictim who was suffering from mild mental retardation.”

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chaman Lal and upheld the High Court’s conviction for rape and criminal intimidation. The court emphasized the vulnerability of individuals with mental disabilities and the need for their protection.

Flowchart of the Case

Ratio Decidendi

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chaman Lal vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh reinforces the principle that individuals with mental disabilities are particularly vulnerable and require special protection under the law. The case emphasizes that the High Court can and should reverse acquittals when the trial court fails to properly consider crucial evidence, such as medical evidence of mental incapacity. This judgment serves as a significant reminder that the law must protect those who are unable to protect themselves, especially in cases of sexual assault. The case also clarifies the scope of Section 375 of the IPC, particularly in cases involving victims with mental disabilities.