Full Judgment Text
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
Avtar Singh & Anr. … Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The judgment dated February 10, 2010 passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.386 of 1999 has
been impugned in the present appeal. The appellants were convicted
and sentenced under Section 342 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal
Code [hereinafter ‘IPC’]. The third accused, Gian Singh was acquitted
by the trial court itself.
Page 1 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
2. Briefly noticing, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 102 of
1996 was registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur,
1
under Sections 366, 376, 342, 506 and 34 IPC against the appellants
i.e. Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal and the acquitted accused, Gian Singh by
the complainant, prosecutrix herself i.e., XYZ [name withheld].
3. Briefly as stated by the prosecutrix in the complaint, on the
basis whereof the FIR was registered, that on 22.07.1996 at about 08.30
PM she went to ease herself in the ‘Maize’ crop field close to her
haveli. When she had just entered the ‘Maize’ crop field, appellant no.
1, Avtar Singh came there. He put his hand on her mouth and took her
to the ‘Maize’ crop field. He made her sniff something. She became
unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself on
the floor of a room. At that time, Avtar Singh was lying with her and
her ‘Salwar’ had been removed. She was feeling pain in her vagina.
When she tried to get up, she was threatened by Avtar Singh with a
knife that if she raised alarm, she would be killed. Again, early in the
morning also, Avtar Singh committed rape on her by showing her a
knife. Next morning on 23.07.1996, at about 06.00 AM, Gian Singh,
Panch of the village, came there and opened the room. (Pertinently,
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Page 2 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
he was acquitted by the Trial Court). At that time, she came to know
that the room in which she was detained, was part of the haveli of Gian
Singh. Thereafter, Avtar Singh went out and bolted the door from the
outside. After this, Gian Singh committed rape on her. The prosecutrix
remained with Gian Singh throughout the day. In the evening, Avtar
Singh and Sohan Lal came to the room and Gian Singh went away.
During the night, both Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal committed rape on
her, turn by turn. In the morning on 24.07.1996, Avtar Singh and Sohan
Lal took the prosecutrix to the ‘Bajra’ field behind the haveli of Gian
Singh and again committed rape on her, turn by turn, against her
consent. She was detained in the Bajra field throughout the day. In the
evening, when Avtar Singh and Sohal Lal were taking her to some
other place, she ran away and reached her house. The prosecutrix
narrated the entire incident to her mother in the evening on
24.07.1996.
4. The FIR was got registered on the next day i.e., 25.07.1996,
against the accused persons by the prosecutrix who came along with
her mother and uncle Basant Singh to the Police Station.
5. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, which included
the prosecutrix herself and her mother. All the other prosecution
witnesses were officials. The defence examined 4 witnesses which
Page 3 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
included a former sarpanch and the sarpanch of the village at time
when the alleged incident had taken place. Further, defence
witnesses includes Adda in-charge of the Union where appellant no. 1
namely, Avtar Singh was employed & lastly, the document and
handwriting expert.
6. The chargesheet was filed against Avtar Singh and Sohan
Lal and Gian Singh was placed in column no. 2. Charges were framed
against Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal and Gian Singh vide order dated
January 08, 1997. On appreciating the evidence produced by the
parties, vide judgment dated February 27, 1999, the trial court
convicted Avtar Singh under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 342, 506 IPC &
Sohan Lal under Section 342 and 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them to
undergone imprisonment for a period of 10 years, respectively,
whereas the accused, Gian Singh was acquitted.
7. Ms. E.R. Sumathy, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the story as projected by the prosecution, was not
believable. There are substantial discrepancies therein. Part of
incident was stated to have taken place in a room in the haveli of Gian
Singh, who was also charge-sheeted for committing rape on the
prosecutrix. However, his involvement was disbelieved by the trial
court and he was acquitted. Once the story of the prosecution is
Page 4 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
disbelieved with reference to the involvement of Gian Singh, the chain
of events is broken and the conviction of the appellants can also not
be upheld. The main incident was stated to have taken placed in the
room of the haveli of Gian Singh, where the accused and the
prosecutrix had remained for two days. He further submitted that no
missing report was filed by the family members of the prosecutrix for
more than two days, despite the fact that she was allegedly missing
from the house from the night of July 22, 1996 and had come back to
her home in the evening of July 24, 1996.
8. Though it is stated in the FIR that the uncle of the prosecutrix
namely, Basant Singh had accompanied them to the police station at
the time of registration of the FIR, however, he has not been produced
in the Court. The appellants could not be linked with the crime, as
there was no report produced from the laboratory linking them to the
crime. It was claimed that the samples of semen and blood was taken
from the clothes of the prosecutrix, but the same were not matched.
There is further discrepancy in the evidence lead by the prosecution
as the prosecutrix stated that she had handed over her clothes namely
salwar and shirt to the Investigating Officer at the police station
whereas her mother, Bakshish Kaur (PW6) stated that the clothes of the
prosecutrix had been given to Sadhu Singh, who had handed over the
Page 5 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
same to the police. Sadhu Singh has not been produced as a
prosecution witness. It was further submitted that there was no injury
found on the body of the prosecutrix, even though she claimed that
rape was committed against her consent firstly on the floor of a room
in the haveli and secondly in the ‘Bajra’ field, that too multiple times.
The plea raised by the appellant no.1 namely Avtar Singh, claiming an
alibi was disregarded by the trial court without any reason. It is further
submitted that the appellant no. 1, namely Avtar Singh had produced
certain love letters written by the prosecutrix to him. Initially, the
prosecutrix had given her sample of handwriting, distorting the same.
However, when she was asked by the handwriting expert for another
sample of handwriting, she had refused to provide the same. For this
conduct of the prosecutrix, an adverse inference is to be drawn.
Further, there is a delay of more than one day in getting the FIR
registered by the prosecutrix. It has further been contended that
Rattan Chand, sarpanch of the village, (DW2) had stated that there
were two rooms in the haveli of Gian Singh. In another room, goods
of Gian Singh were lying, as on the same plot, house of Gian Singh was
under construction and in another room, some labourers were
residing.
Page 6 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
9. The conviction of the appellants deserves to be set aside as
the findings recorded are totally perverse and the view taken by the
Courts below was not a possible view.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel for
the State submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution has been
properly appreciated by the Courts below while recording a finding
of conviction, which does not require interference by this Court, as at
this stage, re-appreciation of evidence should not be done. It is a case
in which rape was committed on the prosecutrix by three accused,
namely Avtar Singh, Sohal Lal, and Gian Singh, though one of them
was acquitted by the trial court. However, the involvement of the
appellants was proved beyond any doubt. Plea taken by them in
defence was not found to be tenable. Delay of one day in getting the
FIR registered in such type of cases is not fatal.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the relevant referred record. As per the version of the
prosecutrix, three accused were involved in the offence, namely Avtar
Singh, Sohan Lal and Gian Singh. It was claimed that on July 22, 1996
when the prosecutrix was on her way to ease herself in a Maize field,
she was waylaid by Avtar Singh who had put handkerchief on her nose
and made her smell something, after which she had become
Page 7 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
unconscious. Thereafter, she was taken in a room in an under-
construction building. It is difficult to believe that in the residential
area of the village, at around 08.30 p.m., Avtar Singh could manage to
take the prosecutrix in an unconscious condition to a room in the
haveli of Gyan Singh unnoticed by anyone. It is further the case setup
by the prosecution that throughout the night, Avtar Singh had
committed rape on the prosecutrix. When she regained
consciousness, she had found herself lying on the floor of the room. In
the morning at about 06.00 AM, Gian Singh had come there along with
a cup of tea, which she had refused to consume. Thereafter, Avtar
Singh left the place and Gian Singh committed rape on her throughout
the day on July 23, 1996. While going out, Avtar Singh had bolted the
door from outside.
12. This story of the prosecution is belied by the fact, as has
come on record through the evidence led by the prosecution, that the
haveli of Gian Singh was under construction where regular activity
was going on. Labour was working there throughout the day. Coupled
with the fact that it was the case of the prosecutrix herself that the
accused party belonged to the opposite group in the village. The trial
court did not find any case made out against Gian Singh in whose
haveli, the prosecutrix had allegedly stayed for two days, out of which
Page 8 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
on one day, she was allegedly raped by Gian Singh, owner of the
haveli. The acquittal of Gian Singh has broken the chain of events and
falsified the story projected by the prosecutrix.
13. Now coming to the evidence lead against the appellants.
It is the case of the prosecution itself that the room in which the
prosecutrix was allegedly detained and raped for two days by three
persons is located in an under-construction haveli of Gian Singh
where labour was working throughout the day. Despite this fact, the
prosecutrix did not raise any alarm. The stand of the prosecutrix in her
statement was that she neither drank water, nor had she eaten
anything for three days. She remained in the illegal custody of the
accused and was raped repeatedly for three days, against her wishes.
When considered in the light of her medical examination, the said
statement is falsified as the doctor noted that she was well-built and
well-nourished.
14. There is nothing in the evidence laid by the prosecution
that there was any threat to the prosecutrix on 23.07.1996 when she
remained in the room with Gian Singh, alone. The story projected by
the prosecution that she was raped by Gian Singh during the daytime
on 23.07.1996, has been disbelieved by the trial court. The case of the
prosecution is that the appellant no. 1 namely, Avtar Singh had left the
Page 9 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
room on 23.07.1996 in the morning, leaving the prosecutrix with Gian
Singh and had come back in the evening with the appellant no.2,
Sohan Lal. Once the involvement of Gian Singh is taken out from the
entire story, the deduction would be that the prosecutrix may have
been alone in the room throughout the day on 23.07.1996, admittedly
at a place, where construction activity was going on all day long. No
alarm was raised by the prosecutrix. Even in her statement, Bakshish
Kaur (PW6), mother of the prosecutrix had stated that “ the kothi
(haveli) was under construction and labourers were working on the roof
as well as inside .” The statement of the prosecutrix that she was raped
throughout the day in open in a field where ‘Bajra’ crop was standing,
is not found to be plausible or persuasive. As per the evidence led by
the prosecution, the ‘Bajra’ field was adjoining the haveli of Gian
Singh, where construction activity was going on at the level of the first
floor and the area all around was visible. If any such incident had
taken place, the prosecutrix being in an open field, could have very
well raised an alarm.
15. The room where the offence was allegedly committed, is
within the compound of an under construction kothi (haveli) of Gian
Singh as it is evident from the site plan (Exhibit PD) produced by the
prosecution. The story of the prosecutrix is further demolished as her
Page 10 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
claim was that she could recognise the place only after she saw Gian
Singh in the morning when he had come there to offer her tea. Gian
Singh’s involvement in the crime has been disbelieved by the Trial
Court while recording his acquittal. The order was not challenged
further.
16. Further in the evidence of the prosecution, a major
discrepancy found in the statements of the prosecutrix as well as her
mother is with reference to handing over the clothes of the prosecutrix
to the police. The prosecutrix had stated that she had handed over her
salwar & kameez (shirt) to the police which had stains of semen,
whereas her mother, (Bakshish Kaur)-PW6, while testifying had stated
that she had handed over the clothes of the prosecutrix to Sadhu Singh
who in turn had given them to the police. Sadhu Singh has not been
produced in the evidence by the prosecution.
17. Admittedly, the prosecutrix had returned home in the
evening of 24.07.96, however, the FIR was got registered in the
evening of 25.07.96 and she was taken for medical examination a day
after, on 26.7.96, at 01.00 pm. From the statement of the doctor, Renu
Kumari (PW1) who examined the prosecutrix (PW4), the claim of the
prosecutrix is further belied. The prosecutrix’s stand is that she was
raped repeatedly from the night of 22.07.1996 till the evening of July
Page 11 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
24, 1996, by three different persons, firstly, in a room with no bedding
and secondly, in a field of ‘Bajra’ crop with no bedsheet or anything.
However, no external/internal injury was found on her body and even
on her private parts. The doctor, Renu Kumari (PW1) opined that the
prosecutrix was well built and well nourished. She further stated that
the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse. This is not to say that
the version of a victim of a sexual offence ought to be disbelieved only
because she has had an active sexual life. In the instant case, the
surrounding circumstances pointed out above, discredit the version
of the prosecutrix.
18. Though in the chemical examiner’s report, it had come
that the clothes of the prosecutrix handed over to the police were
having stains of semen, however, no scientific evidence was produced
to link the same with the accused. This issue gains importance in the
light of the fact that a part of the story sought to be projected by the
prosecutrix, had already been disbelieved by the Trial Court with the
acquittal of the Gian Singh. It has not been pointed out from the record,
that the clothes which were handed over to the police station,
belonged to the prosecutrix. More so when there are two different
versions with reference to the manner of handing over the clothes of
the prosecutrix to the police.
Page 12 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
19. There are several material discrepancies even in the
statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, Bakshish Kaur (PW6) who
stated that after her daughter did not return back on 22.07.1996, she
had informed Rattan Chand (DW2), sarpanch of the village, who also
made efforts to search her daughter. However, when Rattan Chand
appeared in court as DW-2, he completely denied this fact.
20. Further, on going through the evidence led by the
prosecution, the findings returned by the trial court are found to be
completely perverse. It is so stated by the prosecutrix in the FIR that
about 5 months back, her father had a quarrel with Avtar Singh (also
called Tari) and others. To take the revenge, Avtar Singh, Gian Singh
and Sohan Lal had committed rape on her. Gian Singh was acquitted
by the trial court noticing the stand of the prosecutrix that there was
party faction in the village and both the parties belonged to different
sections. The same reasoning will apply to the appellants as well for
the reason that in the FIR, the stand taken by the prosecutrix is same
in respect of all the accused, as far as the allegation of party faction is
concerned.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion
that there was no evidence brought on record to connect the present
appellants with the offence. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the
Page 13 of 14
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1050 OF 2013
judgments of both the courts below are set aside. The appellants are
acquitted of the charges framed against them. The bail bonds
submitted by them are discharged.
______________, J.
( Hima Kohli)
______________, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi
August 02, 2023.
Page 14 of 14