NDLI: Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencingthe appellant for offence of rape u/s. 376 IPC.Penal Code, 1860 – s. 376 – Rape - Allegation of the prosecutrixaged less than 16 years, against her sister’s brother-in-law-appellant that she was raped two three times when she hadgone to her sister’s matrimonial home – Considering thefamily relations, initially the matter was sought to be settledby the marriage of the two – However, the offer was turneddown, and the prosecutrix’s father lodged an FIR – Order ofconviction and sentence of the appellant u/s. 376 by the courtsbelow – Correctness:Held: Testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence –She did not disclose the incident immediately, rather there wereallegations of rape on two three occasions but no date or timedisclosed – She disclosed about the incident to her mother afterone and a half months – The date the prosecutrix alleged the firstincident of rape, was the same date, the prosecution led evidencethat she had attended a school located at a separate place – Thisseems improbable, if not impossible – Also FIR was ultimately filedas the initial proposal of marriage was turned down – All thesefacts cast a doubt on the prosecution case – Evidence, as to theage or even rape not examined properly by the courts below – Nodefinite conclusion could have been made regarding the age ofthe prosecutrix – Prosecution did not successfully prove that theprosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age at the time of thealleged commission of the crime – Furthermore, the prosecutionfailed to do the bone ossification test for determination of the ageof the prosecutrix – Thus, the appellant to be given benefit – Asto the factum of rape itself, the offence of rape not made out asit did not meet the ingredients of rape as defined u/s. 375, as noevidence found which may suggest that the appellant, even thoughhad sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, it was against her willor without her consent – Thus, the order of the courts below setaside and appellant acquitted of the charges. [Paras 6, 9, 11 and 12]Evidence – Offence of rape – Testimony of the prosecutrix –Evidentiary value:Held: Conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimonyof the prosecutrix – Courts have to be extremely careful whileexamining this sole testimony – Furthermore, both the prosecutrixas well as the accused have a right for a fair trial – Thus, whenthe statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence andcreates a doubt, the court must look for corroborative evidence.[Para 5]Evidence – Rape case – Bone ossification test – Requirement:Held: In such cases, a bone ossification test is required to bedone, in order to come to some reliable conclusion as to the ageof the prosecutrix. [Para 9]Criminal jurisprudence – Guiding principle:Held: Courts must examine each evidence with open minddispassionately as an accused is to be presumed innocent tillproved guilty – Guiding principle shall always be the Blackstoneratio which holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escapethan one innocent be punished. [Para 7]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 959
Petitioner	Manak Chand @ Mani
Respondent	The State Of Haryana
SCR	[2023] 14 S.C.R. 74
Judgement Date	2023-10-30
Case Number	2276

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Leela Ram (d) Through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.

Mani Ben Vs. State of Gujarat

Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Anil Vs. State of Haryana

Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana

Lehna Vs. State of Haryana

Pancho Vs. State of Haryana

Dharam Chand Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana

Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana

Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Leela Ram (d) Through Duli Chand Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.

Mani Ben Vs. State of Gujarat

Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Anil Vs. State of Haryana

Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana

Lehna Vs. State of Haryana

Pancho Vs. State of Haryana

Dharam Chand Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana

Manak Chand @ Mani Vs. The State of Haryana