'False Allegation Of Rape Causes Distress & Humiliation To Accused': Supreme Court Acquits Man After 23 Years In Rape Case

A false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation, and damage to the accused as well, said the Supreme Court while acquitting a man in a case for the offence of rape (Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code).

While a conviction in a rape case can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, the Court said that caution and diligence must be exercised in evaluating her statements.

Referring to the judgment in Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133, the Court emphasized that while the evidence of a prosecutrix should ordinarily be believed and not suspected, it cannot be mechanically applied to every case of sexual assault.

The Court said, “It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time, a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation, and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication.."

A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and C.T. Ravikumar was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had upheld the conviction of the appellant and sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.

It is to be noted that the offence allegedly took place in the year 2000 when the age of consent as per the Indian Penal Code was 16 years (it was raised to 18 years after the 2013 amendment). In this case, there was a controversy over the age of the girl, who was allegedly aged about 15 years at the time of the offence. The lack of a clear establishment that the girl was aged less than 16 years and the attending circumstances which indicated a consensual act persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction.

The FIR was lodged on a complaint filed by the girl's father after she confided to her mother that the appellant raped her 2-3 times when she had gone to his house to take care of his sister after child delivery.

Considering the family relations, initially, the matter was sought to be settled by the marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant. But, when this proposal was turned down, FIR was lodged under Sections 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Conviction can be based on sole testimony only if it inspires confidence

The Court began by examining the precedents set in the cases based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It cited the landmark case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, which held that the court may seek additional evidence only if it’s difficult to rely on her testimony, and the trial court must be sensitive in dealing with such cases.

The judgment authored by Justice Dhulia stated: “If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason, the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence that may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.”

The principle was again laid down in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra(2006) 10 SCC 92 which held that sole testimony inspiring confidence in the mind of the court can be relied upon for conviction. But, if her version lacks support from medical evidence or if the surrounding circumstances appear highly improbable and contradict her account, the court should not solely rely on her testimony. The judgment also highlighted the need for a fair trial for both the prosecutrix and the accused.

Applying these principles to the facts, at the outset, the Court raised questions regarding the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony since she did not disclose it immediately. Even when there were allegations of rape on multiple occasions she didn’t disclose the date and time. She only disclosed it after one and a half months. The Court noted that on the same date of occurrence(12.9.2000) she had attended a school located at a separate place.

The Court opined “This seems improbable, if not impossible. All these facts do cast doubt on the story of the prosecution”

The Court pointed out shortcomings in the examination of evidence about age and rape by the trial court and High Court.

It opined “Courts must examine each evidence with open mind dispassionately as an accused is to be presumed innocent till proven guilty. In our adversarial system of criminal jurisprudence, the guiding principle shall always be the Blackstone ratio which holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent be punished.”

Need for bone ossification test to determine victim’s age, school register lacks evidentiary value

The Court raised a significant concern regarding the age of the prosecutrix, The Court noted that the only evidence relied upon by the lower courts to classify the prosecutrix as a minor, less than sixteen years of age, was the school register of the Government Girls High School.

Citing the precedent set in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988) Supp SCC 604, the Court reiterated that the date of birth mentioned in a school register lacks evidentiary value unless it is supported by testimony from the person who made the entry or the individual who provided the date of birth.

It opined, “The proof submitted by the prosecution about the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there was contradictory evidence before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. It was neither safe nor fair to convict the accused, particularly when the age of the prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case.”

The Court emphasized the necessity of conducting a bone ossification test to reliably determine the victim's age, which was notably absent in this case.

The Court noted that FIR was lodged only after the initial marriage proposal was turned down. It pointed out that these factors strongly indicated that what had been alleged as rape might have been a consensual act. The only factor that could have potentially changed this consensual aspect into a case of 'rape' was the age of the prosecutrix. However, medical evidence suggested that the prosecutrix was over 16 years old.

As far as the allegation of rape is concerned the court held “We are not convinced that an offense of rape is made out in this case as it does not meet the ingredients of Rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC, as we do not find any evidence which may suggest that the appellant, even though had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, it was against her will or without her consent.”

Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant under Section 376 IPC.

Case title: Manak Chand v. State of Haryana

Citation:  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Click here to read the judgment