2020 Supreme(SC) 457

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2011
Decided on : 28-07-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is duty of prosecution to lead best evidence in its possession and failure to do so ought to lead to an adverse inference.
(2) Appeal – Where courts below have dealt with material on record in a cavalier or mechanical manner which is likely to cause gross injustice, then Apex Court in such exceptional circumstances may justifiably reappraise evidence to advance cause of justice.
(3) Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by accused must be carefully analysed and considered by trial Court.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366A and 506 – Kidnapping and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence – Courts below failed in making desired attempt to delve deep into factual matrix of this case – Many aspects have completely been ignored or only dealt with hastily – Reasoning is generic and is premised upon generalisations which may not be necessarily true always – Parents would not ordinarily endanger reputation of their minor daughter merely to falsely implicate their opponents, but such clichés ought not to be sole basis of dismissing reasonable doubts created and/or defences set out by accused – Similarly, five day delay in registration of FIR, gains importance as father of victim is an eyewitness to a part of occurrence – It is difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving law into motion – Sweeping assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIRs for sexual offences, send a problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants – Instead, facts of each individual case and behaviour of parties involved ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a conclusion on reason and effect of delay in registration of FIR – In facts of present case, neither is Section 366A by itself a sexual offence in strict sense nor do inactions of prosecutrix or her father inspire confidence on genuineness of prosecution story – No steps were taken to avail of medical examination of victim, nor was Panchayat or any social forum approached for any form of redress till occurrence of second alleged incident. (Paras 10 and 11)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366A and 506 – Kidnapping and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence – It is beyond comprehension that prosecutrix’s father and his two male associates failed to stop tenant boy who was allegedly about to commit a sexual offence with minor victim and neither did they later make any attempt to even register a complaint against him – Prosecution has acquiesced to such disappearance of boy from scene – Father of prosecutrix merely registered his protest to appellant on scene, instead of reacting instinctively and approaching police authorities when faced with possible trafficking of his daughter – This conduct of belatedly proceeding against only prosecutrix creates a lurking suspicion against prosecution case – Original record elucidates lack of serious effort on part of either investigation agency or prosecutor to bring home appellant’s guilt – Save for initiative of prosecutrix and her father to register complaint, no substantive evidence has been gathered by police – It is duty of prosecution to lead best evidence in its possession and failure to do so ought to lead to an adverse inference – There are numerous clear contradictions between testimonies of two star witnesses which is fatal to prosecution case – Trial Court has summarily disregarded contradictions highlighted by defence side, on premise that such contradictions had no material bearing and that there was no reason to disbelieve prosecutrix – Alternate version given by appellant could not be lightly brushed aside – Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving guilt of appellant under Sections 366A and 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence awarded by Courts below set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 17, 22 and 26)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Scope and ambit – Ordinarily, Supreme Court ought not to reappreciate evidence – However, where courts below have dealt with material on record in a cavalier or mechanical manner which is likely to cause gross injustice, then this Court in such exceptional circumstances may justifiably reappraise evidence to advance cause of justice – Such reassessment ought not to take place routinely and ought not to become substitution of an otherwise plausible view taken by Courts below. (Para 16)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by accused must be carefully analysed and considered by trial Court in compliance with mandate of Section 313(4) – Such opportunity is a valuable right of accused to seek justice and defend oneself – Failure of trial Court to fairly apply its mind and consider defence, could endanger conviction itself – Unlike prosecution which needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove their alternate version by mere preponderance of probabilities – Once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination stage, then it is for prosecution to negate such defence plea. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:

Appellant was a single lady living with her child, mother and a young boy as her tenant in the neighbourhood of prosecutrix’s1 house. About a week prior to registration of police complaint, appellant called the prosecutrix to her house and tried to entice her to indulge in illicit intercourse with the rich tenant boy in return for clothes and trips from him. The appellant at about 6.00 A.M. on 19.02.1996, allegedly pushed the visiting prosecutrix into the room occupied by the tenant boy and bolted it from outside. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by appellant, impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana through which her challenge to a judgment dated 27.02.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala was turned down, thereby confirming her conviction of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 under Sections 366A and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

In the case at hand, the alternate version given by the appellant could not be lightly brushed aside. Her two-part defence, put succinctly, was that first there was no male tenant at all and no one except for her child and mother lived with her, and second, that she was being falsely implicated as vengeance for filing a rape complaint against one person with whom the prosecutrix’s father used to work.

Result : Appeal allowed