Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 591

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Davinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2015
Decided On : 22-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Rupali Yadav, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR (N.P.)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix will have to be kept at a higher pedestal but then, such a testimony will have to satisfy conscience of Court – It has to be seen contextually in light of other evidence available.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 452 and 506 – Rape, house trespass and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence – There is delay of 28 days in giving complaint – Reasons assigned cannot be accepted as it defies reason and logic – To commit offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC no sane person would take two accomplices, that too after committing a similar offence earlier – There is no attempt to recover knife from appellant as it is specific case of prosecution that he committed offence by threatening to harm prosecutrix – There is absolutely no reason as to why brother of victim has not been examined being sole eye-witness – Case of prosecution as projected, does not conform to degree of probability – Evidence of prosecutrix will have to be kept at a higher pedestal but then, such a testimony will have to satisfy conscience of Court – It has to be seen contextually in light of other evidence available – Prosecution has not produced any such witness – Conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 8, 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. Seeking to overturn aforesaid decisions, present appeal is filed.
Findings of Court:
Courts below have not considered evidence available on record in proper perspective. They got carried away by the statement made by PW6. Evidence would also suggest that PW4 was not willing to give his daughter in marriage to the appellant though he was desirous of marrying her.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the case Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab:

Case Status and Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence previously rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of the IPC (!) (!) (!) .
Core Legal Principle: While the testimony of a prosecutrix in rape cases must be kept at a higher pedestal, it must satisfy the conscience of the Court when viewed contextually alongside other available evidence; if the prosecution fails to produce material witnesses or recover specific evidence, the case may not conform to the degree of probability required for conviction (!) (!) .
Non-Examination of Material Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine Pargat Singh (the victim's brother), who was the sole eyewitness to the incident where the appellant fled upon seeing him. The Court held that the non-examination of a material witness who could unfold the genesis of the incident creates a deficiency in the prosecution case, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution (!) (!) .
Inconsistencies in Prosecution Version: The prosecution's version was deemed improbable for several reasons:
- The delay of 28 days in filing the complaint provided reasons that defied logic (PW-4 filed a complaint for a quarrel initially, then later for rape, despite not being present at the alleged incidents) (!) .
- It is illogical for a sane person to commit rape with two accomplices after having committed a similar offense earlier (!) .
- There was no attempt to recover the knife, which was central to the prosecution's claim of threat (!) .
- The High Court incorrectly recorded a factual finding that the offense was committed at the uncle's residence, contrary to the victim's own allegations (!) .
Relationship Context: Evidence suggested the appellant wanted to marry the prosecutrix, while her father (PW-4) opposed it. The Court noted that the subsequent compromise between the parties (after PW-4's death) was not a valid ground to ignore the deficiencies in the evidence presented during the trial (!) (!) .
Legal Standards on Evidence: The Court reiterated that the definition of "evidence" under the Evidence Act relies on the degree of probability established through logical inference from matters before the court. A mere non-examination of a witness does not vitiate the prosecution case if overwhelming evidence exists, but if the missing witness is essential to fill a gap or infirmity in the case, the court must draw an adverse inference (!) (!) (!) .
Judicial Approach: The Court emphasized that a judge must assess the existence of a fact by transforming into a "prudent man" to evaluate the probability of the fact's existence based on the matters before them, rather than relying solely on the testimony of a single witness without corroborating circumstances (!) .

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decisions, the present appeal is filed.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant came to the residence of the prosecutrix and committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, brandishing a knife. The brother of the victim namely Pargat Singh came home and upon seeing him, the appellant took to his heels. On returning home, PW-4, the father of the prosecutrix, filed a complaint for quarrel alone as he felt that the dignity of his daughter, PW-6 was at stake.

3. After the aforesaid occurrence dated 15.03.2000, the appellant along with the few other co-accused persons went to the residence of the uncle of the prosecutrix wherein she was temporarily staying anticipating trouble, and exerted threats. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged on 13.04.2000 in FIR No. 60/2000 under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar examined ten prosecution witnesses. It is to be noted that the only eye witness, who is the brother of the prosecutrix Pargat Singh has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution.

5. The Trial Court and the High Court rendered conviction against appellant under all the Sections, with the major punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no recovery of the weapon allegedly used. The non-examination of Pargat Singh would make the case of prosecution doubtful. There was no external injury found on the prosecutrix. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint has not been taken note of. If PW-4 was conscious about the reputation of his daughter being tarnished, he would not have given the complaint belatedly. At best, it could be a case of a relationship turning sour and not approved by the family. The High Court erred in recording that the appellant took co-accused persons to the residence of the uncle of the prosecutrix to commit the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, even when it was not the case of the prosecution. The fact that the parties have compromised the matter in the year 2013 is also to be kept in mind. The High Court being the appellate forum has dealt with the matter in a cursory manner without properly analysing the evidence on record. Moreover, even the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix namely Satnam Singh has not been examined.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the findings being concurrent and in the absence of any perversity, there is no need for any interference. Subsequent arrangements between the parties will not have any bearing and, in any case, it is not permissible under law. Both the Courts have rightly relied upon the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6. In the absence of any enmity or motive, the evidence of PW-6 has been correctly found favourable.

DISCUSSION:

8. The prosecutrix PW-6 did not allege that the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was committed at her uncle’s residence. Admittedly, there is delay of 28 days in giving the complaint. The reasons assigned cannot be accepted as it defies reason and logic. If the intention of PW-4 was to suppress the occurrence, there is no need to give the complaint subsequently. He did give a complaint which was not even registered. Strangely, the complaint was given by PW-4 who was not present on both the occasions. Further, to commit the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC no sane person would take two accomplices, that too after committing a similar offence earlier

Click Here to Read the rest of this document