Rajoo v. State of M.P.
Easy classroom-style explainer: distinct offences under Sections 366 & 376(2)(g), weak identification and medical proof, and why the Supreme Court gave benefit of doubt.
```
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court said: failing to prove Section 366 does not kill a charge under Section 376(2)(g). But here, the identification was unsafe, medical corroboration was weak, and the forensic links were doubtful. So, giving the benefit of doubt, the Court acquitted the accused.
AIR 2009 SC 858 Evidence / IPC / Criminal Law
Issues
- Does failure under Section 366 IPC affect conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC?
- Was the identification of the accused reliable?
- Did medical/forensic evidence support the case?
- Was guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt against each accused?
Rules
- Charges under Section 366 and Section 376(2)(g) are independent.
- Identification must be free from suggestion; a tainted TIP loses value.
- Medical evidence should reasonably support the version, especially in alleged gang rape.
- Prosecution must prove each accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts (Timeline)
Skip to Judgment
Arguments
Appellants
- TIP tainted: prior exposure; distinctive blankets; suggestibility.
- Medical gaps: no injuries; no proof of recent intercourse.
- Forensic weakness: semen-stained underwear handed over late; low probative value.
- Overall case not beyond reasonable doubt.
State
- Relied on FIR, medical notes, and alleged identifications.
- Urged that 376(2)(g) stands independent of 366.
Judgment
Held: Section 366 failure does not automatically end a 376(2)(g) case. Yet, here the Court found identification unreliable, medical evidence insufficient, and forensic support weak.
- Prosecutrix saw accused earlier; TIP had suggestive features → unsafe.
- No injuries and no clear recent intercourse signs → poor corroboration.
- Semen-stained clothes given days later by accused → low evidentiary weight.
Result: Acquittal by giving benefit of doubt (extended to a non-appealing co-accused as well).
Ratio Decidendi
- Distinct Offences: 366 and 376(2)(g) are assessed separately.
- Reliable ID is key: A suggestive or tainted TIP cannot support conviction.
- Corroboration matters: Where medical and forensic signs are weak, courts require strong, consistent testimony.
- Reasonable Doubt: When doubt persists, the accused must be acquitted.
Why It Matters
The case draws a clear line between separate offences and reinforces that suggestive identification and thin corroboration cannot sustain guilt in serious crimes.
Key Takeaways
- 376(2)(g) survives even if 366 fails—independent tests.
- TIP must be free of suggestion.
- Medical/forensic proof should back facts, especially in gang rape claims.
- When in doubt, give the benefit of doubt.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Separate — Spotless TIP — Support”
- Separate: Judge 366 and 376(2)(g) independently.
- Spotless TIP: No prior exposure, no hints, no suggestive props.
- Support: Look for sensible medical/forensic backing.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Whether conviction for 376(2)(g) could stand despite 366 failure, given doubts in identification and corroboration.
Rule
Offences assessed separately; TIP must be reliable; medical/forensic evidence should support; standard is beyond reasonable doubt.
Application
Prior exposure and suggestive TIP; lack of injuries; delayed, voluntary clothing recovery → unreliable proof.
Conclusion
Case not proved beyond reasonable doubt → Acquittal and benefit of doubt extended.
Glossary
- TIP (Test Identification Parade)
- A procedure to test if a witness can pick the accused from a group without suggestion.
- Benefit of Doubt
- When evidence leaves reasonable uncertainty, the court must acquit the accused.
- Corroboration
- Independent support (medical/forensic/circumstantial) backing a witness’s version.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now