Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in 35-Year-Old Rape Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the long-standing criminal case of the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh & Ors., addressing the legal implications of a rape conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, which dates back to 1989, saw multiple acquittals by the Trial Court, a remand by the High Court, and ultimately, a conviction that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The incident in question took place on July 8, 1989. The prosecutrix, PW-5, alleged that she was taken by the accused, Vijay Kumar, from a video parlour to a remote location, where she was raped by multiple individuals, including Raghubir Singh, Sunil Kumar, Hari Ram, and Ravi Prakash. The case went through several rounds of litigation, with the accused initially being acquitted by the Sessions Court due to lack of corroborative evidence.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-in-domestic-murder-case-based-on-dying-declaration/

Following an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case back to the Trial Court, directing it to try the accused for gang rape. Despite a second round of acquittals in 2008, the High Court, upon appeal by the State, reversed the acquittal and sentenced the accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Himachal Pradesh)

The prosecution argued that the acquittal by the Sessions Court was perverse and failed to take into account the testimony of the prosecutrix. The State contended that the High Court should have imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years as prescribed under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, rather than the reduced sentence of three years.

The State further emphasized that the lack of injuries on the prosecutrix was not a determinant of consent, citing medical expert testimony that forceful sexual intercourse does not always result in visible injuries.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/false-criminal-case-quashed-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-shivendra-pratap-singh-thakur/

Arguments by the Respondents (Accused)

The accused, particularly Vijay Kumar, challenged his conviction by arguing that there were two previous acquittals by the Sessions Court on the same evidence. They contended that the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied Vijay and that there was no evidence of coercion or force.

Furthermore, some of the accused claimed that they had prior consensual sexual relations with the prosecutrix and had even paid her money for such encounters. This argument, however, was not put forward during cross-examination of the prosecutrix, weakening its credibility.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s ruling was justified and based on credible evidence. The Court emphasized that:

• The testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and did not require corroboration, as established in previous judgments.
• The accused’s claim of a prior consensual relationship was not substantiated through cross-examination.
• The absence of physical injuries on the prosecutrix did not imply consent.
• The accused had been given the opportunity to present their defense during multiple trials, yet their claims lacked consistency.

Sentencing Considerations

While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, it declined to enhance the sentence from three years to the minimum ten-year term, citing the significant passage of time (35 years) since the incident. The Court took into account the fact that the accused had already served their sentences and had moved on in life.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/arvind-kejriwal-granted-interim-bail-supreme-court-ruling-in-money-laundering-case/

However, for accused Vijay Kumar, who had been out on bail since 2018, the Court ordered him to surrender within one month to serve the remaining period of his sentence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reaffirms the principles governing the evaluation of rape testimonies and the necessity of upholding justice despite procedural delays. The judgment underscores that courts must take a balanced approach while considering the passage of time and rehabilitation of the accused when imposing sentences.

Petitioner Name: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Raghubir Singh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Manali, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 15-05-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: state-of-himachal-pr-vs-raghubir-singh-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-05-2024.pdf