Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. versus MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY
- Decided
- 7 November 2008
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2008] 15 S.C.R. 903 · 2008 INSC 1257
- Also cited as
- (2009) 1 SCC 72
- AIR 2009 SC 711
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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 .
pp. 904–905, margin G
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 AG.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."
p. 905, margin B
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 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. B.B.B. Appeal allowed ..
pp. 905–906, margin F