Why Supreme Court sent man to jail for minor’s rape in 1993
Supreme Court on rape case 1993, Kuldeep Singh rape verdict: Relying on the birth certificate issued by the additional district registrar, birth and death, Jalandhar, the court ruled that a birth certificate issued by the public authority holds more “evidentiary value" than any school certificate.
Supreme Court on rape case 1993: Upholding the conviction of a man who had raped a minor girl in 1993, the Supreme Court ordered him to surrender within four weeks.
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi while dismissing an appeal of the convict Kuldeep Singh also rejected his request that he may be released by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone as he is now about 50 years old and married.
“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,” the bench said.
Case
He was convicted and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment by a court in Jalandhar in 1994. The verdict was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court following which he approached the apex court in 2013.
In December 2014, the top court suspended his sentence and dismissed his appeal on Decmber 4.
Advocates Subhasish Bhowmick, Dinesh Verma, Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari and Rajat Sharma appearing for the convict submitted that the accused could not have been convicted in view of evidence showing her consent as the school certificate showed the victim to be more than 16 years old.
Opposing these submissions, advocate Karan Sharma, appearing for the prosecution said that the survivor’s consent was not significant as it was proved by birth certificate that she was less than 16 years of age at the time of the crime.
Story continues below this ad
Key findings
The court trashed the argument that presence of smegma over the penis of the accused during medical examination could lead to the presumption that he had not committed any sexual intercourse with the survivor.
Smegma is a greasy substance under the foreskin of males composed of skin cells, skin oils, and moisture.
Outlining that the survivor and the accused had been together for about 12 days before their recovery, the court said that there was no evidence on record regarding the actual date on which sexual intercourse was committed for the last time.
Citing Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the top court ruled that presence or absence of smegma is not conclusive proof of commission of sexual intercourse, the court said.
Story continues below this ad
“Smegma can be formed on the penis if the person goes on without bathing for 24 hours. Be that as it may. The presence of smegma over the penis of the appellant does not constrain him from committing coitus, and even mere penetration into the vulva also constitutes rape,” the court said.
Relying on the birth certificate issued by the additional district registrar, birth and death, Jalandhar, the court ruled that a birth certificate issued by the public authority holds more “evidentiary value” than any 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,” the court ruled.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
