Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Of U.P vs Manoj Kumar Pandey

Supreme Court7 November 2008D.K. Jain · C.K. Thakker · Arijit Pasayat

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The age of a victim above 16 years alone cannot be a ground to presume consent to sexual intercourse; actual evidence of consent must be adduced by the accused. In rape cases, the normal procedural rule requiring the prosecution to explain delay in lodging an FIR and to demonstrate that prejudice has or has not resulted from such delay does not apply with the same force as in other criminal cases. An appellate judgment disposing of an appeal in a cryptic manner without addressing the substantive issues and without providing reasoned findings on the key factual and legal points raised is improper and liable to be set aside, requiring remittal for fresh consideration with detailed reasons.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2001

State of U.P. ...Appellant

Versus

Manoj Kumar Pandey ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State. Challenge in

the appeal was to the judgment of the learned Special Additional Sessions

Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 566 of 1996. The respondent faced

trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and

323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The High Court

dismissed the appeal in very cryptic manner holding that there was

possibility of the prosecutrix being a consenting party as she was above 16

years of age.

1

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the manner of

disposal of the Government appeal needs much to be desired. Trial court

did not even record any finding that the prosecutrix was a consenting party

to the sexual intercourse. It went on some hypothetical questions regarding

alleged delay in lodging FIR. The trial court concluded that since the girl

was more than 16 years of age consent had to be presumed. The High Court

concurred with the view and disposed of the appeal which is as follows:

"Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment of the trial court. The age of the girl was found to be above 16 years and further finding is that from the circumstances appearing in the case the possibility of the prosecutrix being a consenting party was not ruled out. The reasons in support of order of acquittal are plausible and cogent. No sufficient ground is made out for interference in the order of acquittal.

Leave to appeal is refused."

3. The approach of the trial court and the High Court is clearly

unsustainable. Merely because the victim was more than 16 years of age as

held by the trial court that cannot be a ground to hold that she was

consenting party. No evidence was led to show such consent. Apart from

that normal rule regarding the duty of the prosecution to explain the delay in

lodging FIR and the lack of prejudice and/or prejudice caused because of

2 such delayed lodging of FIR does not per se apply to cases of rape. This has

been the consistent view of this court. The High Court was, therefore,

clearly wrong in disposing of the appeal in such cryptic manner. In the

circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the High Court and

remit the matter to it for fresh hearing so that it can consider the matter and

hear in detail and dispose of the same by a reasoned judgment. Whatever

has been expressed by us supra is only for the purpose of coming to the

conclusion that the manner of disposal of the appeal is not proper.

4. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

..........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

..........................................J. (C.K. THAKKER)

..........................................J. (D.K. JAIN)

New Delhi:

November 7, 2008

3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free