Affirmation of Statutory Rape Doctrine and Irrelevance of Consent for Minors: Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

1. Introduction

In the landmark decision of Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 392), the Supreme Court of India reiterated and reinforced crucial principles in criminal law, specifically focusing on statutory rape and the legal irrelevance of consent where the victim is a minor. The judgment involves five accused persons charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping/abduction of a girl), and 376(2)(g) (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The central issue before the Court was the culpability of the accused, who were alleged to have kidnapped and repeatedly raped a minor girl over an extended period under the pretext of providing her employment. The primary defense raised revolved around the supposed “consent” of the victim and questions regarding her age. The Supreme Court’s ruling dismissed these defenses, emphasizing that once a victim is found to be a minor, any argument of consent becomes irrelevant and inoperative in law.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Both the Trial Court and the High Court convicted the appellants under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for the kidnapping and gang rape of a girl younger than eighteen years of age. The High Court upheld the core findings of the Trial Court:

The prosecutrix was conclusively proved below eighteen years of age at the time of the incident.
All dissenting arguments regarding delay in filing the FIR and alleged consent by the victim did not negate the prosecution’s case.
Certain adjustments related to sentences for the offenses under Sections 363 and 366 were made, in accordance with Section 71 of the IPC, to avoid double punishment for the same act. One accused, A3 (Raju), was not convicted for kidnapping for technical reasons regarding the absence of a specific charge under Section 363.

Aggrieved, three of the appellants approached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of facts and dismissed the appeals. The Supreme Court declined to reduce their sentences, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

One key precedent referenced in the Judgment was Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 753). In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the sole testimony of a prosecutrix can form the basis for conviction in rape cases if her testimony is found to be credible and does not suffer from serious inconsistencies or contradictions. The Court in the present case drew heavily upon this principle, underlining that the testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to affirm the accused’s criminal liability, as her account was consistent and supported by circumstantial and documentary evidence regarding her age.

Additionally, the Judgment reiterated various judicial pronouncements which hold that consent is immaterial once the victim is proven to be a minor. Even if no serious physical injuries were visible, and even if the prosecutrix had traveled to multiple places with the accused, these factors do not translate into a finding of “consent,” particularly when the victim is below the age of eighteen.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The legal reasoning of the Supreme Court centered on these pillars:

Age Determination: The Court carefully reviewed the medical evidence (dental examination) and documentary proof (school registers, transfer certificates, and the principal’s testimony) that confirmed the prosecutrix was under eighteen years of age. This point alone was decisive against the defense of consent.
Rejection of Consent Argument: Under Indian law, if the prosecutrix is a minor, any alleged consent is void as per the statute. The Court found that the prosecutrix’s repeated subjection to sexual assault over two months could not be sanitized by claiming she did not raise an alarm. Subsumed within this argument was the significance of coercion—where a person is held captive, especially a minor, fear or intimidation effectively nullifies any so-called approach of “consenting behavior.”
Delay in Filing the FIR: The Court clarified that rape cases, by their very nature, often feature delayed registration of First Information Reports (FIR). Here, it was established that the delay was legitimate because the prosecutrix was held captive, making it impossible for her to file a complaint sooner.
Medical Evidence and “Accustomed to Intercourse” Notion: The Supreme Court denounced reliance on the prosecutrix being “accustomed to intercourse” to infer consent. Such archaic notions, the Court clarified, do not and cannot control the question of consent, especially where a minor is involved.
Sentencing: Finally, the Court refused to reduce the sentence from the statutory minimum, underscoring that the crime was heinous and involved repeated sexual exploitation of a minor.

3.3 Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision has several implications for future cases and for the broader legal landscape:

Strengthens Statutory Rape Principles: The ruling reaffirms that once the complainant is proven to be a minor, “consent” is entirely irrelevant, thereby fortifying protections for underage victims.
Clarifies Evidentiary Standards: This case highlights that a prosecutrix’s testimony, if credible, can conclusively form the basis of a guilty verdict. It encourages courts to ensure that minor variations or delays do not undermine the essential truths of sexual assault allegations.
Guidance on Sentencing: By refusing to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum, the Court signals a strong stance against sexual offenses, especially gang rape and rape of minors.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory Rape: Under Indian law, any sexual activity with a person below a certain age is automatically considered rape, regardless of purported consent. Here, that age threshold is eighteen, making the alleged consent irrelevant.
Gang Rape (IPC Section 376(2)(g)): This provision specifically deals with rape committed by more than one person acting in concert. The punishment is more stringent due to the collective nature of the crime.
Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship (IPC Sections 363 & 366): These sections criminalize taking or enticing a minor away from their lawful guardian with the intention of forcing or seducing them into illicit intercourse. An underage girl under custody or guardianship is protected from being taken away by any stranger or relative for unlawful purposes.
Relevance of Age Determination: Proof of minority is critical in rape cases. School records, birth certificates, and medical (including dental) examinations are often used to establish the victim’s age precisely. Once affirmed, it triggers statutory rape principles.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh stands as a noteworthy affirmation of the principle that consent is immaterial when the victim is a minor. The Court’s emphasis on safeguarding minors from sexual exploitation and clarifying evidentiary standards ensures that perpetrators cannot escape liability through superficial or outdated arguments such as the victim’s silence, delayed reporting, or an unsubstantiated inference of “implied consent.”

By upholding the punishment of the accused to the full duration of their sentences, the decision also underscores the severity of such crimes under India’s criminal jurisprudence. It sends a clear message that egregious offenses—especially those involving the exploitation of trust and vulnerability—warrant stringent penalties. This Judgment will likely serve as a controlling authority in similar future cases, further strengthening protections for children and ensuring that the judicial system remains responsive to the needs of sexual assault survivors.