Court upholds convictions for abduction, gang‑rape and confinement but quashes SC/ST atrocity charge and reduces life term to 10 years

A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Sanjay Karol heard the appeal by Raju @ Umakant against a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, which had confirmed his conviction and sentence for offences arising from the abduction, wrongful confinement and sexual assault of the prosecutrix. The appeal challenged convictions under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court partly allowed the appeal. It affirmed the conviction under Sections 366 (abduction), 376(2)(g) (gang rape) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the IPC, but set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act for lack of evidence that caste identity was one of the grounds for the offence. The Bench modified the sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000, with default stipulations; other sentences were left undisturbed and ordered to run concurrently. The Court reiterated established principles on reliance on the prosecutrix’s testimony and joint liability in gang‑rape cases. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Not only does the evidence of ‘R’ sound natural, it also inspires confidence and we have no manner of doubt whatsoever that on the facts of this case, any need for corroboration can be safely dispensed with. As has been rightly observed, a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person’s lust and it will be improper and undesirable to test her evidence with suspicion. All that the law mandates is that the Court should be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of charge levelled by her and if after keeping that aspect in mind if the Court is thereafter satisfied that the evidence is trustworthy, there is nothing that can stop the Court from acting on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix."

Background

The prosecution originated in a missing person report lodged on 24 June 2004 after the prosecutrix, while returning from a wedding, failed to return home. She was recovered on 28 June 2004 from the house of LB, who was described as a woman in a relationship with the appellant. The FIR, registered on 28 June, alleged that Jalandhar Kol abducted and raped the prosecutrix and that Raju aided and harboured the co‑accused. Investigation, recovery memo and witness statements led to charges; trial produced evidence from thirteen prosecution witnesses and two defence witnesses. The trial Court convicted Raju and Jalandhar; the High Court affirmed those convictions. Raju appealed to this Court.

On facts, the Bench accepted the prosecutrix’s account that she was seized by the accused, gagged and taken on a two‑wheeler, confined in houses in fields and subjected to sexual assault by both accused. The Court applied settled precedents that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if credible, could be acted upon without corroboration and that under Section 376(2)(g) joint liability applied where accused acted in furtherance of a common intention; judicial authorities including State of Rajasthan v. N.K., Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana were cited. The Bench rejected defence assertions that the prosecutrix had consented or was in a consensual relationship with the co‑accused and found defence witnesses unpersuasive on key points. The Court noted the medical evidence did not negate the ocular testimony and recorded regret that a two‑finger test had been conducted in 2004, reiterating that the practice was "obnoxious, inhuman and degrading" and must not recur.

On the SC/ST Act charge, the Court analysed Section 3(2)(v) as it stood in 2004 and, following Patan Jamal Vali, held that conviction under that provision required evidence that caste identity was one of the grounds for the offence; the record lacked such evidence and the Court therefore acquitted the appellant of the atrocity charge. In consequence, the appeal was partly allowed: convictions under IPC provisions were upheld, the SC/ST conviction was set aside, and the life sentence was reduced to ten years’ RI to align with the co‑accused’s sentence; all sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant, who was in custody, was to serve the remaining sentence as directed.

Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 17398/2024 (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025; 2025 INSC 615) Case Title: Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Susheel Tomar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Sarthak Raizada, Advocate