Back
1995 Supreme(P&H) 1064
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Kumaran, J.
Charanjit Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 685-SB of 1996,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
In a rape case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt about the guilt of the accused, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted.
Headnote:
RAPE - SECTION 376 IPC - DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT - CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - SECTION 376 IPC - DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT - CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT
Fact of the Case:
Accused Charanjit Singh was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for raping a minor girl, Amarjit Kaur. The accused appealed the conviction, and the prosecution filed a revision petition challenging the inadequacy of the sentence. The main issue in the case was whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a considerable delay in lodging the complaint, which was not properly explained. The court also found that the evidence of the prosecutrix and her aunt, who claimed to have witnessed the incident, was unreliable and contradictory. The court further found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, as the doctor who examined the prosecutrix found no marks of injury on her external genitalia and no bleeding. The court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted him.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in filing the complaint vitiated the prosecution? 2. Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix and her aunt was reliable and corroborated? 3. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the complaint, the unreliable and contradictory evidence of the prosecutrix and her aunt, and the lack of supporting medical evidence raised reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The court applied the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt in such circumstances and acquitted the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal by the accused was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against him. The revision filed by the prosecution was dismissed.
K.S.Kumaran, J.
1. Accused Charanjit Singh son of Baldev Singh faced trial in Session Case No. 19 of 1984 before the Additional Session Judge, Jalandhar, under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code for having committed rape of Amarjit Kaur, a minor girl. After trial the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted accused Charanjit Singh accordingly and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- and in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The Learned, Additional Session Judge also directed that out of the fine, if recovered, Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the prosecutrix-Amarjit Kaur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the prosecutrix Amarjit Kaur had taken on lease the land from Baldev Singh of village Talwara for collecting fodder and Amarjit Kaur used to go to the fields for the purposes of taking the fodder. On the day of occurrence i.e. 8.4.1986 Satya Wati (P.W.9) had also gone to the fields as usual and was cutting grass in the adjoining fields, while the prosecutrix was cutting fodder in the fields of Baldeva. At about 5.30 p.m. the prosecutrix had loaded the fodder on her cycle, accused Charanjit Singh caught hold of the prosecutrix, pushed her on the field and untied the Salwar, which she was wearing. Prosecutrix Amarjit Kaur raised alarm and accused Charanjit Singh gave a bite on her left cheek and then had sexual intercourse with her despite protest and without consent. Satya Wati and Sukhdev Singh were attracted to the scene of occurrence by the alarm raised by Amarjit Kaur, and the accused ran away leaving Amarjit Kaur. The matter was reported by the prosecutrix Amarjit Kaur and Satya Wati to the father of Amarjit Kaur, Kabul Singh a member of Panchayat made attempts to compromise and on failure, Amarjit Kaur was brought to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. On 9.4.1986 where she was examined. On her statement a case was registered against the accused.
3. Prosecution examined Dr. A.S. Thind (P.W-1) who had examined the accused and was of the opinion that the accused was fit to perform sexual intercourse. Gurmail Singh P.W,2, was examined to prove the date of birth of Amarjit Kaur. Dr. Kulwinder Saini P.W.3, opined, on examination of Amarjit Kaur, that the age was between 14 to 14-1/2 years. The x-ray taken by him were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 and his report was marked as Ex. PD. Dr. Amarjit Kaur found a contusion 1.2" multiply 1-1/2" with accrued margins and bluish in colour on left cheek of the prosecutrix.
4. On examination of private part of the prosecutrix the Doctor opined as follows :-
"On P/V examination no marks of injury on her external genitalia. No bleeding per vagina admitted one finger loosely. Hymen was absent. No definite opinion could be given about alleged rape."
The report of Doctor Surinder Kaur was marked as Ex. PE. Amarjit Kaur the prosecutrix deposed on the lines of the case of the prosecution and Satya Wati her aunt was examined as P.W.9 to corroborate her evidence. The investigating officers was examined as P.W.6, P.W.10 & P.W.11.
5 Accused - Charanjit Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C pleaded innocence, and examined Sadhu Singh as P.W.1, who stated that on 8.4.1996 Amarjit Kaur had come to take fodder from the field of Baldev Singh (father of accused) where Charanjit Singh was present, that Baldev Singh had informed Amarjit Kaur not to cut fodder since money was due for the fodder crop. That in spite of that Amarjit Kaur did no desist from cutting fodder, that he was pushed by the accused, that she fell down on the crop and thereafter left to the place challenging the accused. The Learned Additional Session Judge, held the guilt of the accused has been proved and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by which, the accused has come forward with this appeal.
6. The prosecutrix has filed the revision aggrieved by the fact that only a sentence of fiv
