Expression “Being Accustomed To Sexual Intercourse” An Archaic Notion Of Sexual Purity Intending To Morally Shame Victim: Supreme Court Upholds Gang Rape Conviction

The Supreme Court while upholding a gang rape conviction, remarked that an expression “being accustomed to sexual intercourse” is an archaic notion of sexual purity intending to morally shame the victim.

The Court remarked thus in Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which affirmed their conviction and sentences under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “… the reliance of the appellants on the medical report which suggested that the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse shall not further their contention of the sexual act to be consensual in nature. This is simply for the reason that such an expression as “being accustomed to sexual intercourse” is nothing but an archaic notion of sexual purity which intends to morally shame the victim and downplay the role of consent, or the lack thereof, in an offence of rape.”

The Bench further observed that once the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident is established to be that of minority, the question of consent per se becomes irrelevant and the act shall qualify as statutory rape nevertheless.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave represented the Appellants/Accused while DAG V.V.V. Pattabhiram represented the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution case, the victim who at the relevant point of time was an unmarried girl aged about 17 years and was residing with her paternal aunt since childhood. The Accused No. 2 (A2) was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Dhoraha and the Accused No. 1 (A1) was the husband of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chowka Sonvarsh. The houses of A1 and the victim’s aunt were located in the same neighbourhood. It was alleged that in June 2005, A1 assured the victim who by then had studied up to Class X, of securing her employment in near future. Nearly 25 days later, A2 and the Accused No. 5 (A5) and two unknown persons who were introduced as brothers-in-law of A5, came to the victim’s house and she was told that A5 will be able to secure a job for her. Thereafter, A1 visited the victim’s house and asked her to accompany him to Rewa where she was called in by A2 and A5 for the purpose of providing employment.

When the victim wished to seek permission from her aunt, A1 insisted on not informing her who was asleep at that time. As such, A1 took her to a house where A2 and A3 were already present. After a while, A5 also came there and all the three accused persons allegedly committed rape upon the victim. It was further alleged that she was made to stay at that house for some days where she was repeatedly subjected to gang rape by the Appellants. She was allegedly raped multiple times thereafter as well. It was only in September 2005 that an FIR was registered against the Appellants. During medical examination, the Dental Surgeon ascertained the victim’s age as below 17 years. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons and all the five accused preferred Appeals before the High Court. Their Appeals were dismissed and the conviction was affirmed. Being aggrieved by this, all the accused persons except A5 approached the Apex Court. The chief contention of the counsel for the Appellants hinged on the argument that the victim had given her consent to the act.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements of the witnesses on record and the findings of the Courts below, we find that the appellants have not made any good ground on the basis of which the concurrent findings of the two Courts below could be interfered with.”

The Court was of the view that even if the argument of consent is to be considered, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the accused Appellants were men who had held the victim, who was of a tender age, captive for a prolonged period of time by threatening her life.

“It would be illogical to rule out the role played by constant fear that the prosecutrix was operating under as she was being subjected to rape by the accused persons over the period of two months. Such a subjection to sexual intercourse under fear of accused persons can in no way be understood to mean as consent on part of the prosecutrix”, it added.

The Court further said that the lack of injuries on the body of the victim shall not be an important factor in the facts of the case since the offence continued for a period of two months and the medical investigation was conducted much after the first incidence of rape was committed.

“The issue of delay shall also be inconsequential to the case since firstly, the normal rule of delay does not apply to rape cases and further, the prosecutrix was held captive by the appellants for a period of two months and had no means to register the FIR earlier”, it added.

The Court also observed that there are no mitigating circumstances in the case so as to reduce the punishment as lesser than the minimum statutory sentence prescribed in the IPC.

“We are in no way inclined to trivialize the misery and exploitation that has been suffered by the prosecutrix, a young girl from a village who was kidnapped on the pretext of securing her a job by men in whom she imposed some level of trust, and then subjected to an offence as heinous as gang rape for an elongated period of two months”, it remarked.

The Court concluded that the ends of justice shall be met only when the accused-Appellants have suffered the entire period of sentence that they have been awarded and thereby, no leniency is merited in the facts of the case.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title- Raju @ Nirpendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 392)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, AORs B. K. Satija, Shree Pal Singh, Anupam Mishra, Advocates B.P.S. Parihar, Jenis V Francis, Harikumar V., Jemtiben. AO., Nayan Dham, and Rohan Trivedi.

Respondent: DAG V.V.V. Pattabhiram, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocates Mukesh Kumar Verma, and Aditya Chaudhary.

Click here to read/download the Judgment