IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amarjot Bhatti, J.
Raman Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 1163 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution evidence presented (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments from appellant and state (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning on evidence and testimony (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion and acquittal of appellant (Para 13) |
Judgment
Mrs. Amarjot Bhatti, J.
The appellant — Raman Kumar has filed the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2021 and order of sentence dated 08.09.2021 in FIR No.136 dated 23.09.2016 under Section 376 of IPC, Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar vide which he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and under Section 457 IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecutrix gave her statement to the police that she was residing as tenant in street Pehalwan Randhawa, village Masanda, PS Maksoodan, District Jalandhar. She was a dancer by profession. She got married 10 years ago with Mangat Ram. However, due to matrimonial dispute she started residing separately along with her daughter for the last about 3-4 years. On 21.09.2016 at about 10.30 PM she was present in the house along with her daughter Navyya when Raman, who was also working as dancer with her, came to her house along with his friend in drunkard condition. He was turned out of the house. Thereafter she slept in the room along with her daughter. On 22.09.2016 at about 1.30 am (midnight) Raman Kumar along with his friend entered her house by scaling the wall. His friend took her daughter to the roof top of the house and Raman forcibly committed rape with her. She could not raise alarm as her mouth was closed while he raped her. Due to fear she could not raise her voice later-on. Thereafter, she narrated this incident to her friend Varinderjit Kaur. The prosecutrix along with her friend lodged the complaint and prayed for action against Raman Kumar. The investigation was handed over to SI Atamjit Singh. On the basis of this complaint present FIR was registered. Later-on the prosecutrix gave her supplementary statement that on 21/22.09.2016 only Raman Kumar had come and raped her. Raman Kumar was arrested on 07.02.2017. The entire investigation was completed. The medical record was collected.
3. After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and copy thereof was supplied to the accused Raman Kumar. The offence under Section 376 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, vide order dated 06.04.2017 the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. After hearing arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused the charge-sheet was initially framed under Section 376 IPC on 01.06.2017 and subsequently the amended charge-sheet was framed under Sections 376 and 457 IPC on 14.11.2018.
4. In order to prove the facts of the case the prosecution examined Bharti - mother of the prosecutrix as PW1, the prosecutrix herself as PW2, Amrit Lal landlord of the prosecutrix as PW3, Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, Emergency Medical Officer who medically examined the accused as PW- 4, Dr. Birinder Kaur Medical Officer who medically examined the prosecutrix as PW-5, the Investigating Officer SI Atamjit Singh as PW-6, ASI Rajinder Kumar the carrier of parcel as PW-7, ASI Gurjit Singh who handed over the sealed parcels to HC Rajinder Kumar as PW8, Ms. Parminder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class who recorded the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as PW9, Lady Constable Baljit Kaur as PW-10, ASI Manjit Singh as PW-11, Navya minor daughter of the prosecutrix as PW12, Varinderjit Kaur friend of the prosecutri
AI
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Testimony of prosecutrix is infirm, contradictory and doubtful, which does not inspire confidence....
The conviction for rape based solely on the prosecutrix's testimony is unsustainable without corroborative evidence, especially when inconsistencies and delays in reporting raise doubts.
For a conviction in a rape case based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, such evidence must be corroborated, consistent, and of 'sterling quality'; absence of medical evidence and inconsiste....
Conviction for rape can rely solely on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, with proper explanation of FIR delay not undermining the prosecution’s case.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the cases where there are serious doubts regarding the sexual intercourse, the benefit of doubt has been provided upon the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in evidence, and enmity between the parties can raise doubts about the prosecution's case, a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.