The judgment you provided is from the Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, and it pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 2276 of 2014. In this case, the appellant, Manak Chand @ Mani, was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1000. The appellant appealed the decision of the Trial Court, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

The case revolved around an incident where the prosecutrix, who was the younger daughter of the complainant, was sent to live with her sister for the care of her sister’s newborn child. During her stay at her sister’s house, she alleged that the appellant, who was the younger brother of her brother-in-law, raped her on multiple occasions. The matter was initially being “settled,” and there was even an agreement for the prosecutrix to marry the appellant. Still, when the appellant’s family later declined the proposal, an FIR was lodged, leading to the prosecution of the appellant.

The key issues in the case revolved around the age of the prosecutrix and whether the act constituted rape. The school register listed the prosecutrix’s date of birth as 04.04.1987, making her 13½ years old at the time of the alleged offense. However, the medical examination of the prosecutrix indicated she was sixteen years old. The court pointed out that the age of consent for sexual activity in India was sixteen at that time, and it has since been raised to eighteen.

The court emphasized the importance of the prosecutrix’s testimony and the need for careful consideration. While a conviction could be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the court also highlighted the need for corroboration if her testimony raised doubts. The court concluded that the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix was not sufficiently proven, and there was insufficient evidence to establish the act as rape. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted of the charges under Section 376 IPC. The court also stated that the appellant, who was on bail, need not surrender.

Understanding the Legal Nuances: A Detailed Analysis of a Recent Legal Verdict

In the realm of Indian law, a recent case has garnered significant attention. The appellant in this case had been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a section that deals with offenses related to rape. The appellant was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, with default stipulations. The trial court’s order, dated 03.09.2001, was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in an appeal dated 19.02.2014. This article delves into the various aspects of this case, from the allegations and evidence to the legal principles that guided the judgment.

The Allegations

The case revolves around the allegations made by the prosecutrix, who was a minor at the time of the incident. According to the complainant, the father-in-law of the appellant’s elder brother, Pappu, he had requested the prosecutrix’s father to send his younger daughter, the prosecutrix, to Pappu’s house to care for her sister, who had recently given birth. It is alleged that during her stay at her sister’s matrimonial house, the appellant, Manak Chand @ Mani, who is the younger brother of Pappu, raped the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix claimed that this horrifying act was repeated two to three times. Initially, both families had considered settling the matter and even agreed to the marriage of the prosecutrix to the appellant. However, the appellant’s family later declined the offer, leading to the lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 376, 342, and 506 of the IPC.

Legal Proceedings

Following the filing of the FIR, a charge sheet was filed on 02.11.2000, and the matter was committed to sessions court. The charges framed against the appellant included Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the prosecutrix’s testimony to establish that she was a minor at the time of the incident. The school register, which recorded her date of birth as 04.04.1987, was a pivotal piece of evidence in this regard. The prosecutrix, during her examination-in-chief, stated that she had gone to live with her sister upon her brother-in-law’s request and was raped by the appellant on multiple occasions.

Her father supported her version, and the complainant claimed that he had proposed the marriage of the prosecutrix to the appellant, which was turned down. Following this, he lodged the FIR on 23.10.2000. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 28.10.2000, and the report indicated that she was 16 years old at the time.

Legal Principles

The case highlights the significance of the age of consent in cases involving sexual offenses. At the time of the alleged offense in 2000, the age of consent was 16 years. This age requirement was subsequently raised to 18 years through an amendment in 2013. The school register, which was considered as evidence of the prosecutrix’s age, indicated her date of birth as 04.04.1987, making her 13½ years old at the time of the incident. However, her medical examination report stated that she was 16 years old, and her mother corroborated this age.

In cases of rape, the testimony of the prosecutrix is crucial and can be relied upon for conviction. However, the courts must exercise caution and be sensitive when dealing with such cases. The evidence of the prosecutrix should inspire confidence, and corroboration may be sought in case of doubts or inconsistencies. This principle was upheld in various legal precedents, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a fair trial for both the prosecutrix and the accused.

The Verdict

In this case, the Supreme Court of India reviewed the evidence and legal principles involved. It found that the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix, based solely on the school register, was not conclusively proven. The court also highlighted the need for a bone ossification test to determine the age accurately. Additionally, the court pointed out that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the sexual act was non-consensual, given the relative ages of the prosecutrix and the accused. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court’s and the High Court’s orders, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 376 of the IPC.

judgment attachment

Supreme Court: False Rape Allegation Acquittal