Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajan Gupta, Karamjit Singh, JJ.
'X' (prosecutrix) - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Another - Respondent
CRM-A-928-MA-2016
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate,; for the appellant.; Mr. H.S.Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.; Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate,; for respondent No.2.
The judgment underscores the significance of medical evidence, the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, and the need for corroborative evidence in sexual offence cases.
Headnote:
Section 378 - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - 376, 506 - The court discussed the delay in lodging the FIR, the mental and physical condition of the prosecutrix, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The court also highlighted the importance of medical evidence and the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony in sexual offence cases.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, wife of a Lieutenant Colonel, alleged that a Sepoy, who was the driver of her husband's official vehicle, raped her on 04.03.2014. The delay in reporting the incident, the mental and physical condition of the prosecutrix, and the lack of corroborative evidence were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR, the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, and the absence of medical evidence raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was justified.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the delay in reporting the incident, the mental and physical condition of the prosecutrix, and the lack of corroborative evidence, including medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence and the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony in sexual offence cases. It also highlighted the need for corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application seeking grant of leave to appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the accused.
JUDGMENT
Karamjit Singh, J. - The applicant/prosecutrix has filed this application under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking grant of leave to appeal against judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), whereby, respondent No.2-Sepoy Manoj Singh was acquitted in a criminal case having FIR No.27 of 06.03.2015 registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') in Police Station Sujanpur (Pathankot). The name of the prosecutrix is concealed in the headnote of this judgment and she is described as 'X'.
2. As per the prosecution version, the husband of the prosecutrix was serving as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army and was posted at Pathankot. Respondent No.2 was serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army and he was working as a driver of the official vehicle of the husband of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was also a qualified doctor.
3. On 02.02.2015, the prosecutrix lodged complaint with the police, in which it was alleged that, on 04.03.2014, she was pregnant and she went to hospital for medical check up, in the official vehicle of her husband, which was driven by respondent No.2. However, the concerned doctor was busy, and as such, the appointment was cancelled. On the way back to home, she purchased one mobile phone in the name of her husband from the shop of Aashirwad Communications. She also purchased grocery items and then she came back to the official residence of her husband in the vehicle. Respondent No.2 also followed her, while carrying the bag of grocery items. She went into the kitchen to drink water. In the meantime, respondent No.2 locked the front door of the house from inside and then he started molesting her. She resisted and started screaming but no-one heard her screams. Respondent No.2 threatened her and forced her to lay on the dinning table and then, he committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. When she tried to make call, respondent No.2 snatched her mobile phone. Thereafter, respondent No.2 left the house after giving threats to her. Due to said incident, she went into state of shock. She did not disclose anything to her husband, on that day. Her husband took her to psychiatrist, as she went into depression. After the aforesaid incident, she went to her native place in Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) and she came back in June 2014 and thereafter, she gave birth to a female child in July 2014. Thereafter, respondent No.2 started harassing by making telephone calls to her from mobile phone numbers 9876192161 and 07044144785. Due to her sexual harassment by respondent No.2 coupled with post operative complications, she went into post natal depression and on this, she informed her husband that respondent No.2 had misbehaved with her, regarding which her husband immediately informed his seniors. It took some time for her to come out of depression. Finally, on 26.01.2015, she disclosed to her husband about the aforesaid incident of rape dated 04.03.2014.
4. The matter was enquired by the police and FIR was registered against respondent No.2, on 06.03.2015. Respondent No.2 was arrested in this case, on 09.04.2015. Challan was presented in the Court of Illaqua Magistrate and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed under Section 376 and 506 IPC, to which, respondent No.2 had not pleaded guilty.
5. In total, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. PWl-Dr. Prashanta K Das, being doctor in the Indian Army, performed Caesarean Section on prosecutrix, on 19.07.2014 and he proved records (Exhibit PW1/A and Exhibit PW1/B) regarding said medical treatment. PW2 proved bill (Exhibit PW2/A) regarding purchase of one mobile phone from his shop in the name of the husband of the prosecutrix, on 04.03.2014. PW3-Havaldar B.M. Krishna proved record regarding official vehicle used by the husband of the complainant, which was driven by respondent No.2. He proved
