The Supreme Court has ruled that the presence or absence of smegma on an accused’s genitalia is not conclusive proof regarding sexual intercourse. The Court dismissed the rape convict’s appeal, emphasizing the limited medico-legal value of smegma evidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the presence or absence of smegma on the accused’s genitalia cannot be treated as conclusive proof regarding the commission of sexual intercourse. While dismissing an appeal filed by a rape convict, the Court held that discrediting allegations of sexual intercourse solely based on smegma is neither medically nor legally justified.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of smegma cannot reliably indicate whether a man did or did not engage in sexual intercourse, especially when the alleged acts occurred days before the medical examination.
The Bench observed:
“Presence or absence of smegma is not conclusive proof of commission of sexual intercourse.”
Noting that the appellant and the minor prosecutrix had stayed together for nearly 12 days, the Court highlighted that the last instance of intercourse was unknown. The appellant was medically examined one day after being taken into custody. Therefore, the presence of smegma could not rule out the occurrence of coitus.
The Court referred to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (26th Ed.), which states that smegma may accumulate within 24 hours if a person does not bathe, and that its presence is of no medico-legal value, since mere vulval penetration legally constitutes rape.
Case Background
The appeal challenged a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment that had upheld the appellant’s conviction under:
- Section 366 IPC – Kidnapping/abduction to compel marriage
- Section 376 IPC – Rape
The appellant was sentenced to:
- 7 years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) under Section 376
- 6 months R.I. under Section 366
A complaint had been lodged when the prosecutrix, who had gone to school, failed to return home. She was later recovered while in the company of the appellant. Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, leading to his conviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions
- The school certificate indicated that the prosecutrix was over 16 years old, and therefore capable of consenting.
- The presence of smegma during his medical examination was cited as an indication that no sexual intercourse occurred.
State’s Submissions
- The birth certificate, showing the prosecutrix was under 16 years, superseded the school record.
- Consent was legally irrelevant due to her being a minor.
The Supreme Court reiterated that birth certificates issued by statutory authorities carry greater evidentiary value than school certificates, especially when the basis of the school-record age entry is unverified.
Relying on Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988), the Court held that school records have limited worth unless the person who supplied the date of birth is identified and verified.
Since the prosecutrix’s birth certificate showed her date of birth as 28 November 1977, the Court affirmed she was a minor at the time of the offence.
The appellant sought a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, arguing that:
- The incident occurred over 32 years ago
- He is now a 50-year-old married man
However, the Court refused, pointing out that Section 376 IPC prescribed a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years at the time of the offence. Courts cannot reduce punishment below the statutory minimum.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence. The judgment reinforces crucial medico-legal principles, particularly that smegma cannot be relied upon to negate sexual intercourse, and reaffirms the higher evidentiary value of statutory birth certificates over school records in determining age in rape cases involving minors.
Appearances:
Appellant: AOR Subhasish Bhowmick, Advocates Dinesh Verma, Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari and Rajat Sharma
Respondent: AOR Karan Sharma
Case Title:
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2619/2014
READ ORDER
