State of Assam vs Ramen Dowarah || AIR 2016 SC 341 || Case Summary

State of Assam vs Ramen Dowarah

AIR 2016 SC 341

Case Summary

[Rape]

[Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder]

[Murder]

Facts

• On May 1, 2003, the victim was allegedly raped by the accused, Ramen Dowarah, and Janmejoy Gogoi at her home. Following the act, kerosene was poured on the victim, and she was set ablaze.

• The victim sustained 55% burn injuries and later succumbed to her injuries on July 11, 2003, after undergoing treatment.

• The victim's paternal uncle lodged the FIR on the same day.

• The trial court convicted Ramen under Sections 454, 376, and 302 of IPC. The High Court, however, altered the conviction to Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder) and set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC, reducing the sentence to 7 years of imprisonment.

Issues

1. Whether the sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim was consensual or non-consensual.

2. Whether the conviction should fall under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

3. Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 376 IPC (Punishment for Rape) and altering the sentence under Section 302 IPC.

Key Legal Provisions

• Section 376 IPC: Punishment for rape.

• Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.

• Section 304 IPC: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• Section 454 IPC: Punishment for house-trespass to commit an offense.

Judgement

1. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's findings that the sexual intercourse was consensual. It relied on multiple pieces of evidence, including:

   • Dying declarations of the victim, which consistently mentioned the rape and the subsequent threat by the accused.

   • Testimony of the victim’s minor brother, who witnessed the incident and stated that the accused raped his sister and set her ablaze.

   • Medical evidence confirming burn injuries and the statements of the victim during treatment.

2. The Court held that the victim’s young age (14-15 years) and her physical condition made her vulnerable and unable to resist. Her immediate threat to disclose the incident and her subsequent reaction further indicated non-consensual sexual intercourse.

3. The Court restored the trial court's conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape and Section 302 IPC for murder. The Court emphasized that the act of setting the victim ablaze was deliberate and intended to destroy evidence of the crime.

4. Referring to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Court reiterated that women do not make false allegations of rape lightly and that minor discrepancies in their statements should not discredit their testimony.

5. The Supreme Court reinstated the original sentence imposed by the trial court:

   • Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

   • 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC.

   • 1 year imprisonment under Section 454 IPC.

6. The fine imposed by the trial court was also upheld.