REVISITING THE 1989 SHIMLA GANG RAPE CASE
Category: JUDGEMENT REVIEW
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Facts of the case
The prosecutrix claimed that she was gang-raped by several accused people in the case, which revolved around an incident that happened on July 8, 1989. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the accused’s innocence and raise the possibility that the sexual encounters were voluntary, the Sessions Court first cleared the accused. Later, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed this acquittal and remanded the case for a new trial that would concentrate on the allegations of gang rape. The defendants were found not guilty in the retrial by the Sessions Court, but the High Court again got involved and found them guilty in accordance with Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. They were then sentenced to three years of hard labour and a fine of Rs. 50,000 each.
Issues
1.The Supreme Court maintained the conviction, ruling that the victim's lack of bodily injuries does not always imply agreement. This ruling overturned the Sessions Court's previous acquittal, which had found in the accused's favor because there had been no injuries and the alleged consenting nature of the sexual relations.
2.The Court stressed that additional confirmation of the prosecutrix's testimony is not necessary if it is deemed reliable and believable. The High Court held that uncorroborated testimony was inadequate to support a conviction.
3.Under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, the accused was given a sentence of three years in jail by the High Court, which was less than the mandatory minimum of 10 years. The Supreme Court opted not to increase the punishment and instead mandated that the remaining defendants fulfil their sentences, even though it acknowledged the length of time that had passed since the occurrence.
Legal provisions
Section 376(2) (IPC) Punishment for rape
Contentions of appellant
The appealing appealed against the order of acquittal by the order dated 28th March 2008 the sessions quote within their direction to try the accused for the often offence off gang rape after the order of remind the case was tried only against five accused as accused Anil as died the prosecution adopted the evidence recorded before remained an even accused adopted their cross examination by the judgement the order of acquittal it converted the acquittal of the accused into a conviction for the offence punishable under section 376 (2) g of IPC The E The E quote held that there were adequate of social reasons for imposing the sentence of imprisonment for the term less than 10 years accused-Vijay, in support of the Appeal, urged that on the same evidence, there are two judgments of Acquittal in favor of the accused. He submitted that even in the appeal Against the first order of acquittal, the High Court did not convert the Order of acquittal into conviction and passed an order of remand. He Submitted that the finding recorded by the High Court was that on the Date of occurrence of the alleged offence, the prosecutrix was more than Sixteen years old. He Invited our attention to the finding recorded in the impugned judgment By the High Court. He submitted that the High Court held that the Prosecutrix willingly accompanied accused Vijay, who was sitting beside Her in the video parlor where the prosecutrix was watching a movie. He pointed out that the High Court held that the prosecutrix had Acquaintance with accused Vijay, and he had shown interest in solemnizing marriage with her. He submitted that even going by the Case made out by the prosecutrix, she walked ahead of the accused Vijay and reached a bridge in the town. Her evidence shows that she had Several opportunities to raise the alarm but failed to do so. He argued that given the prosecutrix's behavior, it is impossible to believe the evidence she provided. He said that after carefully examining the available evidence, the Sessions Court cleared the accused on two occasions.
Contentions of respondent
The respondent in criminal appeal have been convicted by the I quote of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by judgement an order dated 2March 2017 for the offence of punishable under class subsection 2 section 376 of the Indian Penal Code they were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine for 50,000 each they were sentence to undergo imprisonment for six months on default payment of fine the fine amount if deposited was ordered to be paid to prosecutrix. According to the High Court, This was the only possible finding which could have been recorded based On the evidence on record. Before we consider the evidence, we may Note that in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Sessions Court, after Remand, it is recorded that in the statement of accused Vijay under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC.’), he stated that he had intimacy with the prosecutrix for one Year. She had been charging money for that. Accused Sunil in his Statement under Section 313 of the Cr. PC. Stated that the prosecutrix Used to accompany him even before the alleged occurrence and used to Charge money. He stated that on the day of the incident, the prosecutrix Demanded Rs.100/-, but he could pay only Rs.50/-. The Sessions Court further recorded that accused Ravi, in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC., also stated that sexual intercourse with the Prosecutrix was with her consent and as he did not pay any money to Her, she made a false allegation. The plea of accused Raghubir and Hari Was that they were falsely implicated. Accused-Raghubir, in his Statement under Section 313 of the Cr. PC stated that since he had Accompanied one Chunni Pradhan (discharged accused), false Allegations have been made against him. Accused Hari in his statement Under Section 313 of the Cr. PC. Stated that as he was an employee of chunni Pradhan, he was also dragged into the case. Thus, three out of Five accused have come out with a case that they had sexual intercourse With the consent of the prosecutrix. They went to the extent of alleging That they used to pay her consideration
Court analysis and judgement
Therefore, at the relevant period, the Court was able to impose a sentence of imprisonment of either kind for a duration of less than ten years, for the proper grounds stated in the judgement. We have read the sentence section of the High Court's contested decision. The following elements have been noted by the High Court:
The incident occurred on July 8, 1989. The accused were found not guilty of the offences under Section 376 of the IPC by the judgement dated September 30, 1992. The accused were acquitted of the charges after sixteen years, on March 28, 2008, when the High Court intervened and remanded the case to the Trial Court so that it could try the accused for the offence of gangrape under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The Trial Court found not guilty of the charges by the contested judgement dated September 24, 2008 During the hearing of the appeal in 2017, the accused entered a plea that they were between 49 and 55 years of age and that they were supported by their families. The same and their family obligations were mentioned by the High Court in paragraph 5 of the contested judgement. The learned judges of the High Court were aware that the case they were handling involved an occurrence that happened twenty-eight years ago and that, in the meanwhile, the accused and their families had made progress in life. Consequently, the High Court believed that the exercise of authority under the proviso was justified by sufficient justifications. Almost 35 years after the incident, the case's facts do not support an enhancement in sentence.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide WRITTEN BY - MELVIN SUJAY
GUIDED BY - ADVOCATE ANIK
