Court: The Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2022
Appellant: State of Jharkhand
Respondent: Shailendra Kumar Rai
Bench: Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli
Date Decided: 31st October, 2022
The respondent entered the deceased victim’s home in Narangi village on November 7, 2004, in the afternoon, and it was alleged that he raped her while pushing her to the ground and threatening to kill her if she raised an alarm. The case’s facts were admitted to the court as the victim’s dying declaration. She allegedly called out for help, and the respondent drenched her in kerosene and set her on fire. As soon as the victim’s family heard her cries, they responded to put out the fire and took her to Sadar Hospital in Deoghar, where she was admitted and received medical attention for her wounds. She underwent a “Two Finger Test” as part of her treatment to determine whether or not she had been raped.
PS Sarwna, the police officer-in-charge, after receiving the information regarding the incident travelled to Deoghar to record the statement of the victim in which she discussed how the incident happened and a FIR was filed on the basis of the victims’ statement and he began the investigation. Following the investigation’s conclusion, the IO filed a charge sheet for offenses against Sections 307, 341, 376, and 448 of the IPC in accordance with Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Following the victim’s death on December 14, 2004, a supplemental charge sheet was filed against the respondent, citing Section 302 of the IPC.
Due to the respondent’s denial of guilt, the case proceeded to trial. By virtue of its judgment dated October 10, 2006, the Sessions Court found the respondent guilty of offenses under Sections 302, 341, 376, and 448 of the IPC. The respondent was also sentenced to life in rigorous prison for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, both of which were ordered to run concurrently. Following that, the respondent filed an appeal with the Jharkhand High Court. On January 27, 2018, the High Court declared the Sessions Court’s ruling to be invalid and cleared the respondent. After the Jharkhand High Court’s judgement, the appellant contested the judgement of the High Court by claiming that the Supreme Court of India had jurisdiction over the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the statement of the decedent is considered to be relevant under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
- Has the prosecution proven the respondent’s guilt regarding the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Does the “Two Finger Test” demonstrate that the women were having sex regularly or not?
CONTENTION
The appellants contended that the Jharkhand High Court had interpreted incorrectly the evidence when it was stated that Dr. RK Pandey had been attending to a patient on the table next to the deceased, rather than a patient in a room next to the deceased’s, which the High Court had misinterpreted. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was carried out within 12 hours of her passing away, and the report concluded that septicaemia was the cause of death because of her burn injuries.
The respondent’s counsel opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, arguing that while the dying declaration suggested that the respondent had raped the deceased, the Medical Board’s report said that no firm opinion could be formed in this regard and that there was no other evidence to support the claim that the victim was raped by the respondent and that the victim passed away approximately one month after the incident that was reported. As a result, the deceased’s statement to the IO was not a final testament.
RATIONALE
- The Indian Evidence Act of 1872, Section 32(1), views the decedent’s statement as relevant.
As per the post-mortem report made by Dr. R. Mahto, it was inferred that the reason for the victim’s death was septicaemia which was caused to her by the burns. On the basis of the decision of the High Court in Moti Singh and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that the statement made by the victim was invalid as a dying declaration. In that instance, it was alleged that the victim was shot by the accused. After receiving medical care for her wounds while being admitted to the hospital, the victim was released. A few weeks after the bullet wounds, she passed away and was cremated before a post-mortem could be performed.
This Court claims that there was no information in the file pertaining to the victim’s cause of death. Therefore, her comment was not considered a statement about the cause of her death or any other aspect of the event that preceded it under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The victim in this case died from septicaemia caused by her burn injuries, according to the post-mortem report; therefore, the High Court made an error in relying on Moti Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh. As a result, the victim’s statement in this instance is relevant to the circumstances surrounding her death and the reason behind it, as is covered in more detail in the part that follows.
The post-mortem report states that the deceased’s septicaemia, which finally caused their death, resulted from their burn injuries. The respondent burned the deceased, according to the deceased’s statement, after dousing her in kerosene and lighting her on fire. Furthermore, according to the deceased’s account, the respondent sexually assaulted her prior to setting her on fire. Because of this, the statement of the deceased satisfies Section 32(1)’s requirements and stands alone as a pertinent fact. This appeal will be decided as a dying declaration.
- Regarding the accusations, the prosecution has proven the respondent’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The victim was sexually abused by the respondent, who then doused him in kerosene and set him on fire, as is evident from the dying declaration. The patient died as a result of septicaemia, which was triggered by the burn injuries. Thus, the victim’s injuries from the respondent directly contributed to her demise. The file contains no information that would cast doubt on the respondent’s guilt.
The Sessions Court’s ruling shouldn’t have been overturned by the High Court. This Court can use its authority to enforce the rule of law and overturn acquittal decisions if necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, even though it regularly leaves acquittal decisions made by High Courts alone. Section 173 of the CrPC stipulated that the charge sheet for offenses under Sections 307, 341, 376, and 448 of the IPC had to be submitted. The victim passed away at Sadar Hospital on December 14, 2004. Section 302 of the IPC carried a severe life sentence, and Section 376 of the IPC carried a severe ten-year sentence. These sentences were handed down by the Session Court to the respondent.
- The women’s habitual sexual behaviour was determined by the “Two Finger Test.”
In this instance, the victim underwent a test known as the “Two Finger Test” as part of her examination to determine whether or not she had developed a sexual habit. At this point, the Supreme Court declared that the test violates the victim’s right to privacy, integrity, and dignity and has no scientific value. It also cannot establish or refute the allegation of rape. Whether or not the victim was accustomed to having sex is not relevant to determine whether or not the victim was raped.
Additionally, the union government and state governments were instructed by guidelines issued by the Supreme Court to make sure that:
- The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare disseminates guidelines to all hospitals, both public and private.
- The hosting of workshops to teach medical professionals the proper protocol for examining a rape victim.
- Examine medical students’ course curriculum to ensure that “The Two Finger Test” or per vaginum examination is not listed as a technique to be applied when examining a rape victim.
- A copy of this ruling will be distributed to every secretary in the Indian government’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
- Copies of the documents will be distributed to every state’s public health system by the Secretary and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
As a result, a ban was put on this test by the Supreme Court.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The Supreme Court received the appeal after the High Court misinterpreted certain facts and applied the law incorrectly in rendering its decision. First, it was believed incorrectly that Dr. R.K. Pandey was seeing a patient in the room adjacent to the deceased when he was admitted. But in the same room, he was observing a patient on the table next to the dead. Thus, he saw the deceased make his final declaration in front of the policeman. Furthermore, the ruling in Moti Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh was incorrectly cited by the High Court. It was incorrect because the victim in this instance was cremated prior to a post-mortem being performed, making it impossible to determine the cause of death. However, in this instance, the cause of death was established. As a result, as was previously stated, the case’s verdict would not apply in this instance.
INFERENCE
The Sessions Court’s initial ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, which reversed the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court made an erroneous and flawed decision because it had recognized and disregarded a number of crucial facts. The Supreme Court made clear that a dying declaration made in front of a police officer rather than a magistrate can still be taken into consideration. The format does not have to be question-and-answer. The “two-finger test” was also criticized by the Court for violating women’s privacy rights, being sexist and unethical, and lacking any scientific foundation to establish a woman’s guilt of sexual assault. The Court decided that this test should never be applied to a victim of rape.
-ADITI
AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH