Introduction 

This landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar upheld the conviction of Jarnail Singh for kidnapping and rape of a minor girl in March 1993. The Court established crucial legal precedents by applying systematic age determination procedures under Juvenile Justice Rules 2007 and reaffirming that minor consent is legally meaningless in sexual offense cases. 

Facts of the Case 

Initial Incident: 

• On March 26, 1993, at 6 AM, Savitri Devi informed her husband Jagdish Chander (PW8) that their daughter VW-PW6 was missing from their residence. 
• The prosecutrix had gone missing during the night of March 25-26, 1993. 
• Savitri Devi suspected the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, who was their neighbor. 
• Jarnail Singh was also found missing from his residence during the search. 

Police Complaint and Recovery: 

• Jagdish Chander filed a complaint on March 27, 1993, at Police Post Jathlana. 
• He described his daughter as approximately 16 years old and mentioned that Rs. 3,000/- was also missing from the house. 
• The prosecutrix was recovered on March 29, 1993, from the custody of Jarnail Singh at Shashi Bhan's house in Raipur, Haridwar district. 
• Jarnail Singh was arrested on the same day. 

Prosecutrix's Statement: 

• Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) on April 6, 1993, before Judicial Magistrate O.P. Verma. 
• She stated that on March 25, 1993, around 11 PM, she went to urinate in the street near her house. 
• Jarnail Singh and three accomplices caught her, made her inhale something from a cloth rendering her unconscious. 
• They took her to an unknown place in UP in a vehicle. 
• Jarnail Singh and his accomplices forcibly committed rape on her turn by turn. 
• When she resisted and slapped Jarnail Singh, he put cloth in her mouth to prevent her from raising alarm. 

Medical Evidence: 

• Medical examination conducted by Dr. Kanta Dhankar (PW1) on March 29, 1993. 
• Hymen was found ruptured, vagina admitted 2-3 fingers easily. 
• Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exhibit PL) detected human semen on prosecutrix's salwar, underwear, and pubic hair. 
• Blood stains were found on the salwar, confirmed to be human blood. 

Trial Court Proceedings: 

• Charges framed under Sections 366, 376(g), and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC) on December 20, 1993. 
• The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. 
• Trial Court convicted Jarnail Singh on March 14, 1995. 
• Sentences: 10 years RI for Section 376(g), 7 years RI each for Sections 366 and 120-B, all to run concurrently.

Issues Involved 

• Consent and Free Will: Whether the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused or was forcibly taken away. 
• Age Determination: Whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. 
• Credibility of Evidence: Whether the oral testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient for conviction. 
• Evidentiary Value: Assessment of medical evidence and corroborative witnesses.

Court's Observations

On Consent and Voluntary Accompaniment: 

• Rejection of Defense Argument: The Court found no merit in the contention that prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused. 
• Evidence Analysis: The prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 CrPC clearly established forcible abduction. 
• Logical Inconsistency: Consensual sex with four persons simultaneously was deemed "just not comprehensible". 
• Corroborative Evidence: Medical evidence and forensic reports supported the prosecution's version of forcible rape. 

On the Missing Money Issue: 

• Factual Clarification: Father's testimony revealed that the missing Rs. 3,000/- was later found by his wife in the house itself. 
• No Substantive Evidence: No material evidence supported the claim that prosecutrix took money, clothes, or jewelry. 
• Inference Rejected: The Court rejected the inference that missing money indicated planned elopement. 

On Age Determination - Key Legal Precedent: 

• Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules 2007: Court applied systematic approach for age determination. 
• Hierarchy of Evidence:  
  • Matriculation certificate (highest priority) 
  • School records from first attended school 
  • Birth certificate from municipal/corporation/panchayat 
  • Medical opinion (lowest priority) 
• School Record Evidence: Headmaster Satpal (PW4) proved certificate showing prosecutrix born on May 15, 1977. 
• Conclusive Determination: Prosecutrix was less than 15 years old on March 25, 1993. 
• Legal Principle Established: Even if consent was given, it would be inconsequential as prosecutrix was a minor. 

On Credibility of Prosecutrix's Testimony: 

• Corroborative Evidence: Multiple sources supported prosecutrix's version:  
  • Recovery from accused's custody by Moti Ram (PW3) 
  • Medical examination findings 
  • Forensic laboratory reports 
  • Father's corroborative testimony 
• Cross-examination Analysis: Prosecutrix was not confronted with prior statements to point out contradictions. 
• Scientific Substantiation: Forensic evidence corroborated prosecutrix's claim of bleeding and pain during assault. 

On Evidence Evaluation: 

• Comprehensive Assessment: Court noted substantial material evidence beyond prosecutrix's testimony alone. 
• Medical Corroboration: Ruptured hymen, presence of semen, and blood stains scientifically established sexual assault. 
• Witness Credibility: Recovery witness and medical expert provided independent verification. 
• Defense Suggestions: Accused's own cross-examination suggestions inadvertently admitted to sexual intercourse. 

Final Verdict: 

• Appeal Dismissed: Supreme Court found no merit in the criminal appeal. 
• Conviction Upheld: Convictions under Sections 366, 376(g), and 120-B IPC were maintained. 
• Sentence Confirmed: Original sentences of Trial Court and High Court were upheld.

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment establishes a comprehensive legal framework for protecting minors in sexual offense cases by developing clear methodologies for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Rules 2007 and reaffirming that minor consent is legally meaningless. The court demonstrated the critical importance of corroborative medical and forensic evidence alongside victim testimony, establishing systematic age verification procedures and credibility assessment standards that ensure robust prosecution of such cases. The ruling reinforces absolute legal protection for minors from sexual exploitation while providing clear judicial guidelines for future cases, successfully showing how guilt can be established beyond reasonable doubt through multiple evidence sources rather than relying on testimony alone.