In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed appeals by four men convicted in a 2005 gang-rape and kidnapping case, affirming that consent becomes legally irrelevant when the victim is a minor. The Court directed the convicts to surrender within eight weeks and serve the remainder of their sentences.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol ruled in Criminal Appeal No. 1172 of 2014 and connected matters titled Raju @ Nirpendra Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh. The case stems from a horrifying series of events that began in July 2005, when a 17-year-old girl was kidnapped under the pretext of a job offer and repeatedly raped over a span of two months across multiple cities.
Background of the Case
The prosecutrix, then a 17-year-old living with her paternal aunt Premwati in the village of Chowka Sonvarsha, was lured with the promise of employment by Sheshmani (Accused No. 1), Indrapal (A2), Raju @ Nirpendra Singh (A3), Suresh (A4), and Surendra (A5). On July 6, 2005, she was taken to a house in Rewa where A2, A3, and A5 committed gang rape. The abuse continued in various locations including Sidhi, Bhopal, and even an unknown location near Delhi until September 10, 2005.
She eventually escaped and reached Allahabad, and on September 11, 2005, approached the Laur police station where a missing person report had already been registered by her aunt. The police subsequently filed FIRs under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction for illicit purposes), and 376(2)(g) (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
Trial and Appeals
Following an extensive investigation, the Sessions Court convicted all five accused. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in its 2013 judgment, upheld the convictions and sentences, except for minor modifications. It also ruled that double punishment under Sections 363 and 366 for some of the accused violated Section 71 IPC and struck down the additional sentences.
Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court by A2 (Indrapal), A3 (Raju), and A4 (Suresh), while A1 (Sheshmani) had died during the pendency of the case and his appeal was abated. A5 (Surendra) did not file an appeal.
Supreme Court’s Findings and Observations
The core arguments by the appellants centered around:
- Alleged consent of the prosecutrix;
- Delay in FIR filing;
- Age of the prosecutrix;
- And lack of physical injury suggesting forcible intercourse.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments unequivocally.
“Once the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident is established to be that of minority, the question of consent per se becomes irrelevant and the act shall qualify as statutory rape nevertheless,” the Court ruled.
Dental and school records, along with testimony from the principal and the victim’s guardian, confirmed the prosecutrix was under 17 at the time of the incident.
On the defense’s claim that the victim never raised an alarm during her movement across cities, the Court observed:
“It would be illogical to rule out the role played by constant fear that the prosecutrix was operating under… Such a subjection to sexual intercourse under fear… can in no way be understood to mean as consent.”
Further rejecting the argument that she was “accustomed to sexual intercourse”, the Court said:
“Such an expression… is nothing but an archaic notion of sexual purity which intends to morally shame the victim and downplay the role of consent.”
The bench also dismissed concerns about delayed reporting:
“The normal rule of delay does not apply to rape cases… the prosecutrix was held captive for two months.”
Order
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and held that the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts needed no interference.
“We are in no way inclined to trivialize the misery and exploitation that has been suffered by the prosecutrix… The ends of justice shall be met only when the accused-appellants have suffered the entire period of sentence that they have been awarded.”
The Court ordered that the convicts, currently on bail, surrender within eight weeks.
