Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 408
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.S.Bhalla, J.
Harpal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1997,
Decided On : JANUARY 18, 2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suggestions made by the defense counsel during cross-examination do not constitute evidence against the accused. The court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal trial.
Headnote:
Section 376 IPC - Rape - The court acquitted the appellant based on the lack of evidence and erroneous approach of the trial court in construing suggestions as an implied admission. The medical examination showed no signs of violence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a 20-year-old woman, was raped in her house while her husband was out of station. The appellant, along with other accused, was charged under Section 376 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the prosecutrix's testimony and medical examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The medical examination showed no signs of violence, indicating that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The court also criticized the trial court's reliance on suggestions as an implied admission by the accused.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the interpretation of the medical examination findings. The court also addressed the erroneous approach of the trial court in construing suggestions as an implied admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The medical examination findings and the prosecutrix's testimony were not sufficient to establish the charge of rape. The court also emphasized that suggestions made by the defense counsel did not constitute evidence against the accused.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charge. The court found that the evidence did not support the guilt of the accused, and the medical examination indicated that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
H.S.Bhalla, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 3.9.1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (1) Jind, whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that in March, 1997 prosecutrix wife of Telu, aged, 20 years, was residing in village Intal Khurd. During the intervening night of 17/18.3.1997 her husband had gone out of station and she was sleeping in her house all alone. She had already been conceived at that time. At about 9.30 P.M. some body knocked at the main door of her house. She asked who is at the door. The said person replied that he was Satbir, resident of Mirchpur and asked her to open the door as her husband was under the influence of liquor. When she heard about the condition of her husband, she opened the door. Satbir and Harpal entered the house. She asked where her husband was, but they did not respond. Satbir asked Harpal to do his job and he himself went from there on the pretext of bringing Telu from the trolly of the tractor. Harpal who was previously known to the prosecutrix said "you are still young in age and immature. Why you have separated." In the meantime, Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Hari Singh, resident of village Intal Khurd came there on hearing the knocking of the door. He directed Harpal to go to his house and asked the prosecutrix to sleep, but Harpal directed Raju to go to his house and not to interfere in the private matter. At this, Raju went. Harpal (appellant) bolted the door of the house of the prosecutrix from inside. Prosecutrix cried, but Harpal made her to lay on a cot, broke the siting of her salwar and tried to remove the same. She gave a kick to him and again raised a noise of "Bachao Bachao" Harpal pressed her neck and threatened her to put to death in case she cried. When she looked at the window of the room, she saw that two-three persons were standing outside the window and were trying to remove the curtain. On realizing, that there was some conspiracy and danger to her life, she kept quiet. Harpal removed her underwear and then committed rape with her and thereafter left the spot. Prosecutrix saw three persons, namely, Satbir Mirchpuria, Rajive alias Babban son of Tek Ram and Sukhbir alias Kala son of Kapoor Singh, residents of village, Intal-Khurd standing outside her house and then going in the street in the light of her house. On the next morning at about 12.15 P.M., she went to the Police Station Sadar Jind and reported the matter to the police whereupon F.I.R. (Ex. PK) was registered against the accused persons.
3. After the case was registered, police took the prosecutrix to the General Hospital, Jind for her medical examination and after completion of necessary formalities, accused persons were sent up for trial under Section 376(g), 506/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The trial court framed charge under Section 376 I.P.C. against appellant Harpal, whereas charge under section 120-B l.P.C. was framed against all the accused persons, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in order to substantiate its allegations, examined as many as 11 witnesses and tendered in evidence documents Ex. PA to Ex. PM and placed on record articles Ex.. P-1 to Ex. P-5 and closed its evidence.
6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Harpal the stand that he gave beatings to Telu, the husband of the prosecutrix some 4-5 days prior to the. registration of this case because of the foul act and conduct of the prosecutrix and her husband. He also stated that there was a dispute about the partition of the land between their families. Accused Satbir stated that Telu the husband of the prosecutrix purchased pesticide a
