SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996(1) Crimes 37 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
The State of Punjab - Appellant
versus
Gurmit Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 1985
Decided on 16-1-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The appreciation of evidence by trial court is not only unreasonable but also perverse. The acquittal is liable to be set aside for offences of abduction, wrongful, confinement and rape.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376-Offence of abduction, wrongful confinement & rape-Prosecutrix below 16 abducted by three accused in car while going to home of her maternal uncle-Confined in a 'Kotha' –Forced to take liquor and then raped under threat to kill her if raised alarm-Trial Court acquitted the accused-On grounds prosecutrix was unable to identify car in which she was abducted-Cannot traced-No alarm was raised-Story of abduction is introduced by prosecutrix or her parents and that there was no corroboration of prosecutrix's statement –Rape version disbelieved-Appeal to S.C. under section Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984-Whether grounds on which Trial Court disbelieved the version of prosecutrix are sound? (Not at all) (Para 8)Whether prosecutrix's statement is reliable? (Yes) (Para 9)- Total ignorance of Report of Chemical Examiner by Trial Court not proper (Para 10)-Opinion of Trial Court that it was a fake case due to enemity is perverse- (Para 11)-Erroneous approach of Trial Court and inference of loose character of girl on no evidence (Paras 12 to 14)-Strong disapproval recorded by Supreme Court. (para 15)

       Held: As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the prosecutrix has made a truthful statement and the prosecution has established the case against the respondents beyond every reasonable doubt. The trial court fell in error in acquitting them of the charges levelled against them. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court is not only unreasonable but perverse. The conclusions arrived at by the trial court are untenable and in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the view expressed by it is not a possible view. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the trial court and convict all the three respondents for offences under Section 363/366/368 and 376 IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, the court has to strike a just balance. In this case the occurrence took place on 30.3.1984 (more than 11 years ago). The respondents were aged between 21-24 years of age at the time when the offence was committed. We are informed that the respondents have not been involved in any other offence after they were acquitted by the trial court on 1.6.85, more than a decade ago. All the respondents as well as the prosecutrix must have by now got married and settled down in life. These are some of the factors which we need to take into consideration while imposing an appropriate sentence on the respondents. We accordingly sentence the respondents for the offence under Section 376 IPC to undergo five years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to 1 year's R.I. each. For the offence under Section 363 IPC we sentence them to undergo three years R.I. each but impose no separate sentences for the offence under Section 366/368 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently. (para 16)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Offence of rape-Compensation to victim-As no scheme have been drawn as directed by Supreme Court ruling-No compensation given. (Paras 17 & 18)

       (iii) Criminal trial of crimes against women-Evidence of prosecutrix how to be appreciated (Para 20)-Harassment during her cross examination avoided-(Para 21)- Trial should be in camera and name of victim be avoided. (Paras 22 & 23) (Cross Ref: Evidence Act-Section 114-A-Criminal Procedure Code, 197 3-Section 327 (2) and (3)-1ndian Penal Code, 186o-Sections 375 and 376).

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Anand, J. - This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order of Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana dated 1.6.1985 by which the respondents were acquitted of the charge of abduction and rape. For what follows, the judgment impugned in this appeal, presents a rather disquietening and a disturbing feature. It demonstrates lack of sensitivity on the part of the court by casting unjustified stigmas on a prosecutrix aged below 16 years in a rape case, by overlooking human psychology and behavioural probabilities. An intrinsically wrong approach while appreciating the testimonial potency of the evidence of the prosecutrix has resulted in miscarriage of justice. First a brief reference to the prosecution case.

2. The prosecutrix (name withheld by us), a young girl below 16 years of age, was studying in the 10th class at the relevant time in Government High School, Pakhdwal. The matriculation examinations were going on at the material time. The examination centre of the prosecutrix was located in the Boys High School, Pakhowal. On 30th March, 1984 at about 12.30 p.m. after taking her test in Geography, the prosecutrix was going to the house of her maternal uncle, Darshan Singh, and when she had covered a distance of about 100 karmas from the school, a blue ambassador car being given driven by a sikh youth aged 20/25 year? came from behind. In that car Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Bawa and Ranjit Singh accused were sitting. The car stopped near her. Ranjit Singh accused came out of the car and caught hold of the prosecutrix from her arm and pushed her inside the car. Accused Jagjit Singh @ Bawa put his hand on the mouth of the prosecutrix, while Gurmit Singh accused threatened the prosecutrix, that in case she raised an alarm she would be done to death. All the three accused (respondents herein) drove her to the tubewell of Ranjit Singh accused. She was taken to the 'Kotha' of the Tubewell. The driver of the car after leaving the prosecutrix and the three accused persons there went away with the car. In the said Kotha Gurmit Singh compelled the prosecutrix to take liquor, misrepresenting to her that it was juice. Her refusal did not have any effect and she reluctantly consumed liquor. Gurmit Singh then got removed her salwar and also opened' her shirt. She was made to lie on a cot in the Kotha while his companions guarded the Kotha from outside. Gurmit Singh committed rape upon her. She raised roula as he was suffering pain but Gurmit Singh threatened to kill her if she persisted in raising alarm. Due to that threat, she kept quiet. After Gurmit Singh had committed rape upon her, the other two accused, who were earlier guarding the Kotha from outside, came in one by one, and committed rape upon her. Jagjit Singh alias Bawa committed rape on her after Gurmit Singh and thereafter Ranjit Singh committed rape on her. Each one of the accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix forcibly and against her will. They all subjected her to sexual intercourse once again during the night against her will. Next morning at about 6.00 a.m., the same car arrived at the tubewell Kotha of Ranjit Singh and the three accused made her to sit in that car and left her near the Boys High School, Pakhowal near about the place from where she had been abducted. The prosecutrix had to take her examination in the subject of Hygiene on that date. She, after taking her examination in Hygiene, reached her village Nangalkalan, at about noon time and narrated the entire story to her mother, Smt. Gurdev Kaur, PW7. Her father Trilok Singh PW6 was not present in the house at that time. He returned from his work late in the evening. The mother of the prosecutrix, Smt. Gurdev Kaur PW7, narrated the episode to her husband Tirlok Singh PW6 on his arrival. Her father straightaway contacted Sarpanch Joginder Singh of the village. A panchayat was convened. Matter was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top