Back
2003 Supreme(MP) 1284
2004(2) JLJ 1
(SUPREME COURT)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh
Cri. Appeal No. 547 of 1997;
Decided on 17.12.2003.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973--S.154--delay in lodging FIR--cannot be used as ritualistic formula for doubting prosecution case--Court should see explanation for the delay.
The mother of the victim, PW 4, lodged information with the police that 17-18 days back the accused had committed rape on her daughter PW 7. According to the information lodged, the victim had told her mother after coming from house of the accused that she was forcibly dragged away by the accused while she was cleaning utensils and was raped. At the time of occurrence, wife of the accused was absent and taking advantage of her absence, the accused committed the lustful act. As the father of the victim PW 5 was lying ill seriously, they did not think it proper to inform him and when he recovered from illness and the police had come to the village for investigating into some other case, information was lodged. [Para 4
Held: Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. [Para 8
(2) Penal Code, 1860--S.376-d`rape--delay in lodging FIR explained-victim‘s evidence not at variance with medical evidence--injuries on person of victim could not be seen when she was examined after 3 weeks--her being habituated to intercourse, cannot give licence to rapist--her being in service of accused also proved--offence proved. 2000(3) Supreme 70 relied on. [Paras 9 to 12
(3) Penal Code, 1860--Ss. 228A and 376 to 376D--offences under Ss. 376 to 376D--disclosure of name of victim is punishable under S. 228A--in the judgment she should be described as ‘victim‘ only.
Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence, for which section 228A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. (2003) 8 Supreme 364 relied on. [Para 3
(4) Penal Code, 1860--S.376--offence under--apart from being a dehumanizing act, it is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female--it is a crime against entire society.
Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity--it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. AIR 1996 SC 922 relied or. [Para 1
(5) Constitution of India--Art. 21-d`rape--is a crime against basic human rights-- is also violative of victim‘s right to life under Art. 21. AIR 1996 SC 922 relied on. [Para 1
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 154&çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky fd, tkus esa foyac&vfHkkstu i{kdFku ij lansg djus ds fy, fof/k ds vuqlkj lw= ds :i esa ç;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk&Uk;ky; }kjk foyac ds Li"Vhdj.k ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
vkgr dh ekrk v lk 4 us iqfyl esa bfÙkyk nkf[ky dh fd 17&18 fnu iwoZ vfHk;qDr us mldh iq=h v lk 7 ds lkFk cykRlax fd;k FkkA nkf[ky dh xbZ bfÙkyk ds vuqlkj] vkgr us vfHk;qDr ds ?kj ls vkus ds i‘pkr~ viuh ekrk dks crk;k Fkk fd tc og crZu lkQ dj jgh Fkh rc vfHk;qDr mls cyiwoZd ?klhV dj ys x;k rFkk mlds lkFk cykRlax fd;kA ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qDr dh iRuh vuqifLFkr Fkh rFkk mldh vuqifLFkfr dk Qk;nk mBkrs gq, vfHk;qDr us ;g dkeqd ÑR; fd;k FkkA D;ksafd vkgr dk firk v lk 5 xaHkhj :i ls vLoLFk iM+k Fkk blfy, mUgksaus mls lwfpr djuk mfpr ugha le>k rFkk tc og LoLFk gks x;k rFkk fdlh vU; ekeys esa vUos"k.k ds fy, iqfyl xk¡o esa vkbZ rc lwpuk nkf[ky dh xbZA ¼iSjk 4½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac vfHk;kstu i{kdFku ij lansg djus ds fy, fof/k ds vuqlkj lw= ds :i eas rFkk mls çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac ds ,dek= vk/kkj ij R;Dr djus ds fy, ç;qDr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA foyac dk çHkko U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kus ds fy, lrdZ dj nsus dk gksrk gS fd D;k foyac ds fy, Li"Vhdj.k fn;k x;k gS] rFkk ;fn fn;k x;k gS rc og lek/kkuçn gS vFkok ughaA ¼iSjk 8½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 376&cykRlax&çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa foyac Li"VhÑr&vkgr dk lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls fHkUu ugha&3 lIrkg i‘pkr~ tc mldk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k rc vkgr ds ‘kjhj ij {kfr;k¡ ugha fn[k ldrh Fkha&mlds eSFkqu ds vH;Lr gksus ls cykRlaxdrkZ dks NwV ugha fey ldrh&mldk vfHk;qDr dh lsok esa gksuk Hkh lkfcr&vijk/k lkfcrA 2000¼3½ lqçhe 70 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 9 ls 12
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860&/kkjk 228d rFkk 376 ls 376?k&/kkjk 376 ls 376?k ds v/khu vijk/k&vkgr ds uke dk çdVhdj.k /kkjk 228d ds v/khu naMuh; gS&fu.kZ esa mlds dsoy ^vkgr* ds :i esa of.kZr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
,sls fdlh fo"k; esa uke dk eqnz.k ;k çdk‘ku nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlls fdlh ,sls O;fDr dh ‘kuk[r mtkxj gks ftlds fo#) /kkjk 376] 376d] 376[k] 376x vFkok 376?k ds v/khu vijk/k fd;k tkuk vfHkdfFkr gS vFkok fd;k x;k fu"df"kZr fd;k x;k gSA lR; gS fd ;g fuc±/ku mPp U;k;ky; vFkok mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ds eqnz.k ;k çdk‘ku ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA ijarq ySafxd vijk/k dh vkgr dks lkekftd mRihM+u vFkok cfg"dkj ls cpkus ds mn~ns‘; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ftlds fy, /kkjk 228d vf/kfu;fer dh xbZ gS] ;g mi;qDr gksxk fd fu.kZ;ksa esa] pkgs og bl U;k;ky; ds gksa] mPp U;k;ky; ds gksa vFkok fupys U;k;ky; ds vkgr dk uke ugha crk;k tk,A 2003¼8½ lqçhe 364 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 3½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 376&ds v/khu vijk/k&vekuoh ÑR; gksus ds vfrfjDr og L=h ds ,dkarrk vkSj ifo=rk ds vf/kdkj dk fof/kfo#) vfrØe.k gS& og laiw.kZ lekt ds çfr vijk/k gSA
vekuoh; ÑR; gksus ds vfrfjDr] ySafxd fgalk L=h ds ,dkarrk vkSj ifo=rk ds vf/kdkj dk fof/kfo#) vfrØe.k gSA og mlds loksZPp lEeku ij xaHkhj vk?kkr gS rFkk mlls mlds LokfHkeku rFkk xfjek dks Bsl igq¡prh gS&mlls vkgr dk vieku vkSj ekuHkax gksrk gS rFkk tgk¡ vkgr vlgk; eklwe ckfydk vFkok vçkIro; gks ogk¡ og ekufld vk?kkr ds vuqHko dk nkx NksM+ tkrk gSA cykRlaxdrkZ dsoy nSfgd {kfr dkfjr ugha djrk vfirq vfeV :i ls L=h ds lokZf/kd l¡tks dj j[kh xbZ /kjksgj vFkkZr~ mldh xfjek] mldk lEeku] lq;‘k rFkk lcls egRoiw.kZ mlds lrhRo ij nkx NksM+ tkrk gSA cykRlax L=h dh nsg ek= ds çfr vijk/k ugha gS] vfirq og laiw.kZ lekt ds çfr vijk/k gSA mlls L=h dh laiw.kZ eukso`fÙk /oLr gks tkrh gS rFkk og mls xgjs HkkokRed ladV esa /kdsy nsrk gSA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 922 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 1½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq- 21&cykRlax&ewy ekuokf/kdkjksa ds çfr vijk/k gS&vuq- 21 ds v/khu vkgr ds thou ds vf/kdkj dk Hkh vfrØked gSA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 922 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 1½
Pasayat, J.--1. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity--it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty (AIR 1996 SC 922), the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crises. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with case of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos.
2. The State of Punjab questions acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') who was charged for commission of offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
3. We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228-A of IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C or 376D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence, for which section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as 'victim' in the judgment. (See State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja (2003(8) Supreme 364).
4. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows :
On 1.10.1985 the mother of the victim, PW 4, lodged information with the po1ice that 17-18 days back the accused had committed rape on her daughter PW 7. According to the information lodged, the victim had told her mother after coming from house of the accused that she was forcibly dragged away by the accused while she was cleaning utensils and was raped. At the time of occurrence, wife of the accused was absent and taking advantage of her absence, the accused committed the lustful act. As the father of the victim PW 5 was lying ill seriously they did not think it proper to inform him and when he recovered from illness and the police had come to the village for investigating into some other case, information was lodged. The victim girl was sent for medical examination and she was examined by PW 2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and accused faced trial. He denied the accusations and pleaded false implication. It was stated that the mother of the victim had taken some money as advance for serving as maid servant and as she did not work and refused to refund the money, a suit was filed for recovery of the amount and, therefore, with a view to avoid payment false accusation has been made. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused of the offence punishable under
