2024 Supreme(SC) 218

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sexual assault on minor girl – While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for conviction to be recorded.
(2) When considering evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of incident.

Headnote:

(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Sexual assault and criminal intimidation of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – Where oral testimony is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of rule of prudence – In cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, Court should strive to find out true genesis of incident – Court can rely on victim as a “sterling witness” without further corroboration but quality and credibility must be exceptionally high – Statement of prosecutrix ought to be consistent from beginning to the end (minor inconsistencies excepted), from initial statement to oral testimony, without creating any doubt qua prosecution’s case – While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for conviction to be recorded. (Paras 11 and 15)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Sexual harassment and criminal intimidation of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – It is a given fact that there were other students present in classroom who were eyewitnesses to incident – In what could have been a determinative factor, none of students present in classroom was examined except one who turned hostile to case set up by prosecution – High Court proceeded to decide appeal with a coloured vision of victim having been sexually assaulted which led to deflection of justice – Prosecution's case has been marked by lacklustre efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gives rise to substantial doubts regarding integrity of case – Material contradictions apparent in depositions of prosecution witnesses, including victim, significantly undermine credibility of prosecution version – These inconsistencies in prosecution's narrative, render it considerably doubtful – Conviction can be recorded on sole evidence of a victim of crime; however, it must undergo strict scrutiny through well settled legal principles as established by Supreme Court – Evidence led leaves reasonable suspicion as to whether A-1 was actually involved in any criminal act – In light of nature of overt act attributed to A-2, case against him does not justify conviction under section 506 I.P.C. – Impugned Judgments set aside and appellants acquitted. (Paras 16, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – When considering evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of incident – Instead, emphasis is on allowing victim to provide her version based on her recollection of events, to the extent reasonably possible for her to recollect – If Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version – However, an alleged offence of sexual harassment in a public place, as opposed to one committed within confines of a room or a house, or even in a public place but away from view of public, stands on somewhat different premise – If any doubt arises in Court's mind regarding veracity of victim's version, Court may, at its discretion, seek corroboration from other witnesses who directly observed incident or from other attending circumstances to unearth truth. (Paras 17 and 18)

Facts of the case:

Special Court having convicted A-1 under Section 12 of the POCSO Act sentenced him to three (3) years’ rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default to suffer further six (6) months’ rigorous imprisonment. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, conviction under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was recorded and he was sentenced to two (2) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/, in default to suffer further four (4) months’ rigorous imprisonment. Issues that emerge for decision are:

(i) Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record conviction against A-1 and A-2?

(ii) Should the answer to the above be in the affirmative, what should be the appropriate punishment to be imposed on A-1 and A-2?

Findings of Court:

Act of sexual harassment of a girl student (who is also a minor) by any teacher would figure quite high in the list of offences of grave nature since it has far-reaching consequences, which impact more than just parties to the proceeding. At the same time, it is axiomatic that reputation is earned by a teacher upon rendering service over the years and an accusation like the present would remain as an indelible mark marring his entire future life. Care has, therefore, to be taken so that his right to live a life of dignity and personal liberty are not put to jeopardy on the basis of half-baked evidence.

Result : Appeal allowed.