Allahabad High Court rules that injury to private parts is not necessary to prove rape or gang-rape. Victim testimony alone can establish the offence under Indian law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court recently clarified a critical aspect of criminal jurisprudence concerning rape cases. In a landmark ruling, the Court observed that injury to the private parts of a victim is not always necessary to establish the offence of rape, including gang-rape.
This clarification came in Criminal Appeals filed by four men convicted under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 20 years along with a fine of ₹20,000 each.
The Court’s Observations
A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir emphasized the nuances of consent and resistance in sexual assault cases, stating:
“Injury to the private parts of a rape victim is not always necessary as evidence to establish the offence of rape, including gang-rape. The absence of injury to the prosecutrix’s private parts can primarily be the result of non-employment of force in perpetration of the crime. This can come about on account of various factors, particularly, the victim being put in fear to an extent that she did not resist the act. The other possibility could be that the victim being unconscious or semiconscious due to the deleterious effect of an intoxicating substance, like alcohol or any other drug did not offer resistance.”
The Bench further remarked on the reluctance of police officers to promptly register certain heinous crimes:
“There is extreme reluctance on the police’s part to promptly register particular kinds of offences, including some heinous ones and one of the ‘reluctant categories’, unfortunately, is rape, particularly gang-rape.”
Case Background
The incident traces back to 2015, when the victim, a 20-year-old woman, left home to buy some gutkha for her father. Due to the cold weather and fog, most shops were closed. The victim encountered Irfan @ Golu and Ritesh @ Shanu outside her home, who allegedly muffled her voice and took her to a ruined building, where two other men joined them.
According to the FIR, the accused:
- Forced the victim to imbibe alcohol,
- Beat her up, and
- Ravished her one by one, leaving her in an inebriated state.
The next morning, the victim regained consciousness and raised the alarm. She was subsequently taken to the police station by her parents.
The Sessions Court convicted all four accused under Section 376-D IPC. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Allahabad High Court.
High Court Reasoning
The High Court examined the case in light of the victim’s age, background, and the circumstances of the crime. Justice Munir noted:
“The prosecutrix is a 20 year old small town girl, coming from a modest background… She would have felt devastated to face the gruesome crime while still a college student and an unmarried woman.”
The Court also explained the delay in registering the FIR, attributing it to police reluctance rather than any hesitation on the part of the victim or her parents:
“A gang-rape invites public outrage and it is often seen that the Police try to downplay or ignore the crime. In this case, there is something telltale… which would make us think that the FIR came a day later, not because the prosecutrix or the first informant necessarily hesitated, but because the Police were initially reluctant to register the gruesome crime.”
Importantly, the Court highlighted the value of the prosecutrix’s testimony:
“The prosecutrix’s testimony is all the more worthy of acceptance because she is a young woman of 20 years… She possibly cannot be said to suffer from the handicap of her mental faculties being feeble on account of young age, or the resultant non-understanding of what befell her.”
Even in the absence of injury to private parts, the Court noted that the victim’s semiconscious state due to forced alcohol consumption explained the absence of such injuries:
“Some of the external injuries could be the result of the hard ground… The fact that the prosecutrix did not sustain any injury to her private parts is clearly attributable to the fact that she was semiconscious and under the stupefying effect of the alcohol that she was forced to imbibe by the offenders.”
The Court upheld the conviction of Irfan @ Golu, whose identity was well established, while acquitting the other three accused due to reasonable doubt regarding their identification.
Appearance:
For Appellant: Mr. Kamta Prasad (in CA No. 1594), Mr. Sushil Kumar Dwivedi (in CA No. 1897 of 2017), Mr. M. P. Yadav (in CA No. 1580 of 2017) and Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot (in CA No. 1282 of 2017)
For Respondent: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, A.G.A. along with Mr. K. K. Nishad, State Law Officer on behalf of the State in all the appeals
Case Title:
Irfan Versus State of U.P
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 1594 of 2017
Read Judgment:
