1993 Jalandhar rape case: Supreme Court sends convict back to jail

Upholding the conviction of a Punjab man for raping a minor in 1993, the Supreme Court has ordered him to surrender within four weeks.

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the concerned view that the Appeal has no substance,” a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi said, rejecting convict Kuldeep Singh’s appeal.

The convict had requested the top court to release him by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone as he was now married and about 50 years old. However, the Bench didn’t accept his request. “As on the date of occurrence, the minimum sentence provided under section 376 of the IPC was seven years, therefore, it is not possible to reduce the sentence to less than minimum sentence provided under the statute,” it said in its December 4 order.

“The appellant is on bail. He is granted four weeks’ time to surrender, failing which, he shall be taken into custody,” the Bench ordered.

Singh was convicted by a Jalandhar court in 1994 which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  After he filed an appeal in the top court in 2013, his sentence was suspended in December 2014, pending a final decision.

The appellant’s counsel had contended that presence of smegma over the penis of accused during medical examination could lead to the presumption that he had not committed any sexual intercourse with the victim.

However, the top court concluded that presence or absence of smegma was not conclusive proof of commission of sexual intercourse.

It also rejected the argument that the accused could not have been convicted in view of evidence showing her consent, considering that the school certificate showed the victim to be more than 16 years old.

The top court chose to rely on the birth certificate issued by the Additional District Registrar, Birth and Death, Jalandhar (which proved that she was less than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence), saying the birth certificate issued by the public authority held more evidentiary value than the school certificate.

“The trial court and the High Court as well have opined that when the school admission certificate carrying date of birth of the prosecutrix is contrasted with the birth certificate issued by the competent statutory authority, the birth certificate has more evidentiary value and unless there are compelling reasons, the said date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate cannot be ignored."