IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D NO. 786-DB of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of prosecution and trial details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. determination of the prosecutrix's age and incident recount. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. conflicting evidence from witness testimonies. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. examination of witness credibility and evidence reliance. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. prosecution's failure to substantiate claims. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. final judgment and acquittal of appellants. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The instant appeal has been directed against the verdict of conviction, and, the order of sentence dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Exclusive Court, Amritsar, in case FIR No.69 dated 18.04.2017, registered under Sections 365 , 363, 366-A, 376, 328, 120-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), and, section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short), at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, whereby the appellant Nos.1 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 365, 366, 366-A and 376-D of IPC, while, the appellant No.2 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 365, 366, 366- A, and, Section 17 of POCSO Act. The appellants have been awarded sentence as under:-
| Offence under Section | Period (R.I.) | Fine | In Default |
| Appellants No.1 and 3- Kuldeep Singh and Manjinder Singh @ Peeta | |||
| Section 363 of IPC | R.I. for 7 Years | Rs.10,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 365 of IPC | R.I. for 7 Years | Rs.10,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 366 of IPC | R.I. for 10 Years | Rs.20,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 366-A of IPC | R.I. for 10 Years | Rs.20,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 376 -D of IPC | R.I. for 20 Years | Rs.20,000/- | R.I. 2 Years |
| Appellant No.2- Jinder Kaur @ Veer Kaur | |||
| Section 363 of IPC | R.I. for 7 Years | Rs.10,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 365 of IPC | R.I. for 7 Years | Rs.10,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 366 of IPC | R.I. for 10 Years | Rs.20,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 366-A of IPC | R.I. for 10 Years | Rs.20,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
| Section 17 of POCSO Act | R.I. 10 Years | Rs.20,000/- | R.I. for 1 year |
2. The prosecution story unveils with the recording of the statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the complainant (mother of prosecutrix) (identity of the complainant and the prosecutrix is withheld in terms of explanation attached to Section 33 (7) of the POCSO Act), wherein, she stated that she is doing a private job at Focal Point, Amritsar, and, her duty hours are from 09:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. She is the mother of three children, i.e. two daughters and one son, out of whom, the prosecutrix is her youngest daughter, who was born in 1999. At the time of the incident, the prosecutrix had appeared in matriculation examination. On 15.04.2017, she went on duty at Focal Point, Amritsar, while leaving both her daughters at house, however, when she returned home at 5 o'clock in the evening, she did not find the prosecutrix at home. When she enquired about the whereabouts of prosecutrix from her another daughter, it was informed that at about 11:00 a.m., the friends-cum-schoolmates of the prosecutrix, namely, Ravneet Kaur and Komalpreet Kaur, had come to their house and the prosecutrix accompanied both of them on the premise of going to the house of Ravneet Kaur. Thereupon, the complainant went to the houses of both these girls to enquire about the prosecutrix and both these girls were found present at their respective houses, however, nothing could be elucidated about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. Consequently, the complainant along with her other family members made efforts to search the prosecutrix at various places, but, all in vain. Having been unsuccessful in tracing the prosecutrix, the complainant alleged that the prosecutrix has been kidnapped by some unknown person with intention to detain her in illegal custody. U
Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Appeal against conviction - Rape of Minor girl - Reliability of testimony - Statement made by prosecutrix and her failure to give any details of the previous places th....
The court established that a victim's testimony, while crucial, must be corroborated; contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements rendered the conviction unsafe.
Acquittal in rape case upheld where prosecutrix turns hostile, denies force, disputes age records claiming majority, rendering testimony unreliable amid contradictions; prosecution fails beyond reaso....
Point of law: There can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable, a conviction can be based. However, in the case on hand, the testimony ....
The prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.
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.