- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harpal Singh And Another v. State Of Himachal Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge for raping Saroj Kumari during the night of 20–21 August 1972. Their conviction and sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment each were affirmed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The present judgment arises from an appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court of India challenging that conviction. The prosecutrix lodged the First Information Report on 31 August 1972—ten days after the occurrence—explaining the delay on the ground that family honour required consultation before approaching the authorities. Both the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge recorded her testimony, which was found substantially consistent and corroborated by her father and brother.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the ten-day delay in lodging the FIR undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the alleged absence of injuries on the prosecutrix and evidence suggesting prior sexual activity indicated consensual intercourse.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age, rendering consent immaterial under Section 376 IPC.
- Whether documentary evidence of age—specifically school and birth-register entries—was admissible without examining the official who made the entry, under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The lack of injuries on the victim’s private parts and indications that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse showed the acts were consensual.
- Because consent was present, the offence of rape was not made out.
- The certified copy of the birth-register entry (Ext. PD) was inadmissible since the officer/chowkidar who recorded it was not called as a witness.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first addressed the relevance of delay in lodging the FIR, holding that considerations of family honour commonly cause such delays and that the prosecutrix’s explanation was reasonable. Turning to the consent argument, the Court observed that if the girl was proved to be under sixteen, consent would be legally irrelevant.
On the question of age, the Court found “overwhelming evidence”:
- Expert testimony of Dr. Jagdish Rai (PW-14), a radiologist, placed the victim’s age at about fifteen after an X-ray examination.
- School admission register (Ext. PF), proved by the Headmaster, recorded her date of birth as 13 October 1957.
- A certified copy of the birth-register entry (Ext. PD) recorded her birth on 11 November 1957. The Court ruled this document admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act because it was an official entry made in discharge of official duty; examination of its author was unnecessary.
Accepting this evidence, the Court concluded that Saroj Kumari was below sixteen at the time of the incident, rendering any alleged consent immaterial. Given the consistent and corroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, the convictions were upheld, and the Court found no merit in the appeal.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; Conviction and Sentence Affirmed.
The appellants remain convicted under Section 376 IPC with sentences of four years’ rigorous imprisonment each. The judgment reiterates that documentary entries made in the discharge of official duties are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and underscores that consent is legally irrelevant when the victim is below sixteen years of age. No broader precedent was set beyond the reaffirmation of these established principles.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The appellants have been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years each. The central evidence in the case consists of the testimony of Saroj Kumari, the girl who is said to have been raped by the appellants and another who was acquitted by the trial court. The occurrence, according to the prosecutrix, took place on the night intervening August 20 and 21, 1972. The first information report was lodged on August 31, 1972. The complainant had given reasonable explanation for lodging it after ten days of the occurrence. She stated that as honour of the family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not. It is not uncommon that such considerations delay action on the part of the near relations of a young girl who is raped. The prosecutrix has narrated her story before the Committing Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge. Leaving aside minor contradictions here and there her testimony is consistent. Both the High Court and the Sessions Judge have believed it and it is corroborated by the evidence of her own brother and father to whom she had related the details of the occurrence without delay after she was rescued.
2. Mr Hardy laid emphasis on the circumstances that no injury was detected on the private parts of the girl and that she was found to have been used to sexual intercourse and argued that it was a case of sexual intercourse by consent. This argument will be of no avail to the appellants if once it is proved that the girl was below 16 years of age, because in that case the question of consent becomes wholly irrelevant.
3. In the instant case the prosecution has proved the age of the girl by overwhelming evidence. To begin with, there is the evidence of Dr Jagdish Rai (PW 14) who is a radiologist and who, after X-ray examination of the girl found that she was about 15 years of age. This is corroborated by Ext. PF, which is an entry in the admission register maintained at the Government Girls' High School, Samnoli (wherein the girl was a student) and which is proved by the Headmaster. That entry states the date of birth of the girl as October 13, 1957. There is yet another document viz. Ext. PD, a certified copy of the relevant entry in the birth register which shows that Saroj Kumari, who according to her evidence was known as Ramesh during her childhood, was born to Lajwanti, wife of Daulat Ram on November 11, 1957. Mr Hardy submitted that in the absence of the examination of the officer/Chowkidar concerned who recorded the entry, it was inadmissible in evidence. We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author. From whatever angle we view the evidence, the conclusion is inescapable that Saroj Kumari was below 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence. Accordingly we agree with judgments of the courts below and see no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
Alert