Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Daya Chaudhary, Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.
Samina - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
CRA-AD No. 789 of 2019
Decided On : 14-01-2020
Mr. Atul Prataap Dhankar, Advocate, for the Appellant
The presumption of innocence, compelling grounds for interference with a judgment of acquittal, and the significance of consistency in the prosecutrix's testimony and evaluating the delay in lodging the FIR.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Rape - IPC 365, 376, 506, 201 - [IPC 365, IPC 376, IPC 506, IPC 201] - The court discussed the principles of appellate review in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling grounds to interfere with a judgment of acquittal. The court also highlighted the importance of consistency in the testimony of the prosecutrix and the significance of evaluating the delay in lodging the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged with offenses under Sections 365, 376, 506, 201 IPC. The prosecutrix alleged that the respondent forcibly took her, raped her, and threatened her to not disclose the incident. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, concluding it was a case of consent, not rape.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the lack of corroboration. It emphasized the principles of appellate review in cases of acquittal and found no infirmity in the Trial Court's findings.
Issues: Inconsistencies in prosecutrix's testimony, delay in lodging the FIR, corroboration of evidence, principles of appellate review in cases of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need for compelling grounds to interfere with a judgment of acquittal, and the significance of consistency in the prosecutrix's testimony and evaluating the delay in lodging the FIR.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.08.2019 as rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonepat whereby respondent no. 2 Rahisu had been acquitted of the charges as levelled against him under Sections 365, 376, 506, 201 IPC, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the prosecution of respondent no.2 in the instant case, are that on 26.11.2016, respondent no.2 went to the house of the prosecutrix and asked her to give him Rs.1000/- or Rs.1500/- for the repair of his vehicle which had broken down near the pond of the village. She arranged for the said amount and went to the pond to hand over the same to respondent no.2 but he forcibly pulled her inside the car and put some cloth on her mouth and she fell unconscious. On regaining the consciousness, she found herself at an unknown place and respondent no.2 raped her while threatening that if she disclosed this incident to anyone, he would kill her as well as her family members. On the next day, respondent no.2, along with his relatives Sattar and Irshad, brought her to the Police Station Sadar, Sonepat and while threatening her, he asked her to make a statement before the police regarding her having voluntarily gone with him. She signed some documents at the said Police Station and then, she was taken to Police Station Kundli and her husband and brother, who had come there, took her to Village Jatwara, Sonepat.
3. On the basis of the complaint containing the afore-mentioned allegations of the prosecutrix, a formal FIR was registered and respondent no.2 was arrested. The statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Respondent no.2 as well as the prosecutrix were got medico legally examined. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. On completion of the necessary investigation, the final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was forwarded to the Court. Learned Trial Court, after perusing the entire material available on the record, charge-sheeted respondent no.2 for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 365, 376, 506 IPC.
4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its allegations against respondent no. 2, examined as many as eighteen witnesses including the prosecutrix as well as her husband and sister and respondent no.2 also examined four witnesses in his defence evidence.
5. Learned Trial Court, after the appraisal and evaluation of the evidence as led on the file, acquitted respondent no. 2 of the charges as framed against him while concluding that the prosecution had not been able to establish its allegations against him beyond reasonable doubt and rather, it was a case of the consent of the prosecutrix and not of the rape committed upon her by him.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal and have also perused the file thoroughly.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while appearing as PW-1, the prosecutrix has fully supported her earlier version as set forth in the formal FIR and her testimony has been duly corroborated by PW-2 Sahid, her husband and PW-5 Sanno, her sister as well as the other material witnesses. The delay in lodging the formal FIR had occurred due to the threat given by respondent no.2 to the prosecutrix to eliminate her and her family members in the eventuality of her disclosing the factum of her having been raped by him, to the police or any other person but however, learned Trial Court did not appreciate and evaluate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective and acquitted respondent no.2 of the charges framed against him and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
8. Before adverting to the discussion on the merits of the present appeal, we deem it exped
