What is the whole matter?
This is the story of a heinous crime of 1993, where even after 30 years, a rapist has been ordered to complete his sentence. The accused had sought release from the court citing age and marriage, but the court clearly said that there is no compromise with the protection of innocence. The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi rejected the appeal of the accused in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs Punjab State. The accused is now around 50 years old. He had requested the court to limit his sentence to the period he has spent in jail as he is now married. The Supreme Court rejected this demand outright. While delivering the verdict the court made an important comment:
On the date of the incident, the minimum punishment under Section 376 of the IPC was seven years, so there is no way to reduce it from the minimum punishment given in the law.
This statement of the court makes it clear that in serious crimes like rape of a minor, the court cannot go below the minimum statutory punishment, even if the family or personal life of the applicant has changed.
‘Smegma’ argument also rejected
A very strange argument also came to light in this case. The lawyer of the accused argued that the presence of ‘Smegma’ on the private part of the accused during the medical examination proves that he had not had sexual relations. Smegma is a thick substance made up of skin cells, oil and moisture that can collect under the foreskin in men. It was argued that its presence reflected the absence of sexual activity. But the Supreme Court declared this argument invalid. Citing ‘Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’, the court said that the presence or absence of smegma is not a conclusive proof of sexual intercourse.
The Court clarified:
Smegma can form even if you do not bathe for 24 hours. Even if this is so, the presence of smegma on the private parts of the appellant does not prevent him from having sexual intercourse and even mere penetration of the woman’s private parts amounts to rape.
Birth certificate above school certificate
The accused’s lawyer also argued that as per the victim’s school certificate, she was above 16 years of age, hence it could be a case of consent. However, the Supreme Court expressed confidence in the judgment of the trial court and the High Court and gave an important verdict that the probative value of a birth certificate issued by a legal authority is greater than that of a school admission certificate. Since the victim was a minor as per the birth certificate issued by the District Registrar, the plea of consent was automatically rejected.
The rapist was free since 2014
In the year 1994, Jalandhar Court had sentenced the convict, which was upheld by the High Court. In 2013, the case reached the Supreme Court and the sentence was suspended in December 2014. Now after 11 years, the Supreme Court has ordered the accused to surrender within four weeks. This decision proves that even if justice is delayed, it definitely reaches its destination.
