Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Manipur Division Bench of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma upheld the conviction of three individuals under Section 376-D of the Indian Penal Code for gang rape. However, the Court partly allowed the criminal appeal by modifying the sentence of one appellant. The Bench reduced the life imprisonment awarded to the first appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment to ensure uniformity in sentencing, as the other two co-convicts were awarded 20-year terms for the same offence. The rest of the trial court's findings were affirmed.

On 22 January 2014, a woman (Miss X) was allegedly abducted and gang-raped by three individuals while returning from Mantripukhri Bazaar in Imphal East. According to a written complaint submitted the following day, the victim was kidnapped in Lamlongei and taken to a nearby secluded area where she was sexually assaulted. FIR No. 04(1)2014 HNG-PS under Sections 376 and 34 IPC was registered at Heingang Police Station.

Also Read: Supreme Court: IAS Officers Can't Write ACRs Of Indian Forest Service Officers Up To APCCF Rank | Reporting Authority Must Be Immediate Superior Within Forest Department

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 376/34 IPC, 384, and 120-B IPC. On 24 July 2017, formal charges were framed. Subsequently, on 8 December 2017, the trial court invoked Section 216 CrPC to alter the charge to Section 376-D IPC (gang rape), based on the prosecution's request and evidentiary material.

During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on multiple documentary and forensic exhibits. The victim, in her testimony, described how she had gone to meet her boyfriend in Mantripukhri and had walked with him to a hillock-like area for a conversation. There, three unknown men confronted them, accused them of inappropriate conduct, and forcibly separated them. One man allegedly raped her while the others restrained her and demanded money.

The victim's uncle, who lodged the FIR, testified that she failed to return home and that local residents informed him that she had been taken by unknown persons. Upon learning the identities of the assailants through police investigation, he lodged the complaint.

The initial medical examination conducted on 24 January 2014, two days after the alleged incident, found abrasions, tenderness, and a fresh tear in the genital region of the victim, with signs consistent with recent sexual intercourse and use of force.

The investigating officer also recovered several exhibits, including clothing stained with bodily fluids and mobile phones belonging to the victim and her boyfriend. A confessional statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the first accused (A-1), wherein he admitted to sexually touching the victim and demanding money from the couple, though he denied penetration.

The trial court convicted all three accused under Section 376-D IPC on 18 December 2017. A-1 was sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life with a fine of Rs. 10,000, while A-2 and A-3 were sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with fines of Rs. 5,000 each.

The convicted individuals filed criminal appeals challenging the judgment and sentence. The grounds for appeal included alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, lack of forensic corroboration, procedural lapses including absence of fresh Section 313 CrPC examination after charge alteration, and discrepancies in describing the location of the crime.

The appellants argued that there were contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 161, 164, and her in-court depositions. Notably, during recall cross-examination, the victim admitted that A-1 did not rape her. The defence also challenged the validity of the FIR and questioned the admissibility of the confessional statement.

In response, the prosecution submitted that the victim’s original testimony and medical evidence corroborated the crime. It contended that the contradiction in her later statement was due to fear or pressure and should not vitiate the overall findings. The prosecution also emphasized that the Section 164 CrPC confession was voluntarily recorded and consistent with the broader sequence of events.

The Court considered the evidentiary record and statutory framework while evaluating the validity of the conviction and sentencing.

It recorded: “The prosecutrix has categorically stated in her 164 CrPC statement that she was raped by the 1st appellant while the other two restrained her. Her statement reads, ‘Bungbung then raped me. He inserted his penis inside my private parts.’”

On the variation in her subsequent cross-examination, the Court noted: “The statement given on 11-12-2017 (on recall) was made out of fear and influence from the accused person.”

Regarding medical evidence, the judgment stated: “The medical examination revealed fresh tears and tenderness in the external genitalia, which are consistent with recent sexual intercourse and the use of force.”

On the confessional statement of A-1, the Court quoted: “I also being a human being was overtaken by the carnal desire… I leave up her clothes… I ejaculated myself without any penetration into her body.” The Bench noted that this supported the victim’s allegations despite the denial of penetration.

Responding to the challenge regarding the absence of fresh examination under Section 313 CrPC post-charge alteration, the Bench stated: “Though the accused were not re-examined after alteration of charge, no prejudice was shown to have been caused, and the defence had full opportunity during cross-examination.”

As to the differing sentences, the Court remarked: “The trial court awarded life imprisonment to A-1 without giving any distinct reason for treating his sentence differently. In the absence of any detailed reasoning, uniformity of sentencing under the same charge is warranted.”

On the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony, the Court referred to settled law: “The evidence of a prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness and does not require corroboration in every case.”

The Court also addressed the delay in FIR filing, stating: “Delay of one day in reporting the matter has been explained with reference to the victim's emotional state and the fact that she initially returned to her mother’s house.”

Finally, on the lack of forensic confirmation, the Bench stated: “Medical and ocular evidence are sufficient to support conviction in absence of DNA confirmation, especially when confessional and testimonial records are clear.”

The High Court issued a set of directions modifying the sentence imposed on A-1 while upholding the convictions of all three appellants under Section 376-D IPC.

Also Read: Gujarat High Court Directs ₹25 Lakh Aid To Widow | Quashes Rejection Of Covid Relief | Petitioner Cannot Be Made To Suffer For Official Default

The Bench held: “The conviction of all three appellants under Section 376-D IPC is upheld. However, the sentence awarded to A-1 is reduced from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.”

It further directed: “The sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to A-2 and A-3 is affirmed. The fine of Rs. 5,000 each and default clause of 3 months simple imprisonment also stands.”

The Court recorded that the appeal was “partly allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence of A-1” and directed that “the convicts shall continue to remain in custody and serve their respective sentences as per the modified order.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Khaidem Mani, Senior Advocate; Mr. A. Gautam Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Ibemcha Keisham, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Kh. Athouba, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, Deputy Government Advocate

Case Title: XXX v. State of Manipur

Case Number: Cril. Appeal No. 1 of 2018

Bench: Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma

[Read/Download order]