Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Men In Rape Case 20 Yrs After Conviction Upon Finding Inconsistencies In Prosecution Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted three men of rape charge giving them benefit of doubt, after twenty years of conviction. 

Justice Kirti Singh said, "It is trite law that case of prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it must prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In view of the material contradictions noted...the whole prosecution story rests on quicksand, as the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt."

The Court found major contradiction in prosecution story and pointed that  the prosecutrix had turned hostile at the stage of cross-examination.

Furthermore the Court noted that, in the FIR, it was stated by the prosecutrix that after committing rape, the accused persons dropped her at Head Works, Ropar where her husband met her and she narrated the entire incident to him whereas in her statement before the trial Court as a prosecution witness, she stated that when the accused persons dropped her after committing rape upon her, nobody met her and she had gone to her house by foot, where her husband was present. It was also stated that she did not informe him of the incident that had taken place

"The trial Court has gravely erred in ignoring the aforesaid material contradictions made by the prosecutrix in her statement before the police and in the statement recorded before the trial Court... This Court does not dispute the settled proposition of law that minor contradictions and inconsistencies, which do not go to the root of the prosecution version, need to be ignored. But in this case, it is not possible for this Court to adopt such an approach because there is a major contradiction in the prosecution story," it added.

The Court was hearing appeal against conviction filed by three men who were convicted under Section 366, 376 IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 IPC.

According to the prosecution, the alleged victim was raped by three men on February 28, 2003 after she was forced inside a car. The same was reported on March 20, 2003. 

Rejecting the defence that FIR was lodged after a delay of 20 days the Court said, "The learned Trial Court rightly observed that, given the nature of the offence involving the modesty of a woman, families are often hesitant to approach the police promptly due to social stigma and concerns about their honour. The ground of delay by itself is not sufficient to dent the case against the appellants."

Further, the Court found that the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief supported the prosecution version but in her cross-examination, she retracted from her earlier stance and said that accused persons present in the Court were not the ones who committed rape upon her and that she had named the accused persons in the FIR on the suggestion of the investigating agency.

The Court observed, in a case where a woman is sexually assaulted, the most material witness is the prosecutrix herself and as such, her statement is of the paramount importance and the same must inspire confidence, which is not so in the present case, given that the credibility of the prosecutrix stands shaken due to the various inconsistencies and discrepancies in her statements.

The Court noted that the doctor who conducted the MLR stated that, "the clothes of the prosecutrix were changed since the incident and teeth marks on left breast were seen, however, there were no other external marks of injuries. In her cross-examination, she stated that at the time of her examination, the prosecutrix was going through her menstrual cycle and the possibility of teeth marks on the left breast of prosecutrix being due to breastfeeding a child cannot be ruled out, as the prosecutrix was a married woman having children."

"The doctor did not give any opinion qua the sexual assault committed upon the prosecutrix and her opinion was qua sexual intercourse," added the Court.

Moreover the judge found material contradictions in testimony of other witnesses namely the sister-in-law and husband of the prosecutrix.

"PW-3, (sister in-law of prosecutrix) in her statement had stated that at about 8 PM some persons came in a vehicle with muffled faces and abducted her sister-in-law but she nowhere stated names of persons, who abducted her sister-in-law whereas the husband of the prosecutrix in his cross-examination stated that his sister in law had informed him that Bobby son of Gurdial Singh was driving and Ravi was sitting on the back seat of the ambassador car which was used for the abduction of the prosecutrix," the Court noted.

The Court opined that there are inconsistencies in the statement of PW-3 qua the time when the prosecutrix arrived home on the night of the incident and  it is "settled law that the testimonies of the hostile witnesses may be used to corroborate the allegations levelled against the accused persons but in such cases extreme care and caution must be exercised, which prima facie does not seem to have done by the learned Trial Court in the present case while convicting the appellants."

In the light of the above, the Court opined that the trial Court totally ignored the aforesaid major and material contradiction and set set aside the conviction.

Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocae and

Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1921-SB-2004.

Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-1860-SB-2004.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab. 

XXX v. State of Punjab