| Citation | 1996 AIR 1393, 1996 SCC (2) 384, JT 1996 (1) 298, 1996 SCALE (1)309 |
| Date of Judgement | 16th January,1996 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Statutes | Terrorist Affected Areas (special courts) Act, 1984 |
| Appellant | The State of Punjab |
| Respondent | Gurmit Singh & Ors. |
| Bench | Anand, A.S. (J), Ahmad Saghir S. (J) |
| Referred | Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act states that whether corroborative evidence is a necessary component of legal credibility. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The prosecutrix was a young girl, under sixteen years old, enrolled at Government High School, Pakhowal, in the tenth grade at the relevant time. At that time, the matriculation exams were being administered. The Boys High School in Pakhowal served as the prosecutrix’s examination centre. Around 12.30 p.m. on March 30, 1984, the prosecutrix left the school to go to her maternal uncle Darshan Singh’s home. After travelling around 100 miles, a blue ambassador vehicle driven by a young Sikh man, maybe in his 20s or 25s, pulled up from behind. The accused, Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh @ Bawa, and Ranjit Singh were seated in the vehicle. The vehicle stopped beside her.
After stepping out of the vehicle, the accused Ranjit Singh grabbed the prosecutrix by the arm and pulled her inside the vehicle. While accused Gurmit Singh @ Bawa threatened to kill the prosecutrix if she raised an alarm, accused Jagjit Singh @ Bawa put his palm over the prosecutrix’s mouth. She was driven to Ranjit Singh’s tubewell by all three of the suspects. They brought her to the Tubewell’s ‘kotha’. Once the prosecutrix and the three accused individuals were gone, the car’s driver drove off. Gurmit Singh forced the prosecutrix to drink alcohol in the aforementioned kotha while pretending it was juice. Reluctantly, she drank the liquor despite her denial having no impact. After that the accused Gurmit Singh removed her salwar and also opened her shirt. She was made to lie down on a cot in the kotha while his friends guarded the kotha from outside. Gurmit Singh committed rape upon her. She raised her voice because of the pain she was suffering but Gurmit Singh threatened her to kill if she persisted in raising alarm. Due to that threat, she kept quiet. After Gurmit Singh the other two accused, who were earlier guarding the kotha came in one by one, and committed rape upon her. After Gurmit Singh, accused Jagjit Singh alias bawa committed rape on her and thereafter Ranjit Singh committed rape on her. Each of the accused forced and refused to stop the prosecutrix from having sex with her.
They all forced her to have sex with them again that night, against her choice. The same automobile came at Ranjit Singh’s tubewell kotha early the following morning at around six o’clock. The three accused forced her to seat in it and abandoned her close to the Boys High School in Pakhowal, which is located not far from the scene of her kidnapping. On that day, the prosecutrix was required to take her hygiene examination.
After finishing her exams in Hygeine, the girl arrived at her hometown of Nangal-Kalan at midday and told her mother, Smt. Gurdev Kaur, the entire tale. At that moment, her father Trilok Singh was not at home. He came home late at night after work. The prosecutrix’s mother told her husband about the incident. The victim’s father immediately got in touch with the village’s Sarpanch, Joginder Singh. There was a panchayat meeting. Additionally, the Sarpanch of the hamlet of Pakhowal was also made aware of the situation.
Both Sarpanches attempted to reach a solution with compromise, but since the panchayat was unable to provide the prosecutrix with any justice or relief, she and her father went to the Raikot police station to file a police report over the occurrence. When they arrived at the bus adda in the village of Pakhowal, the police met them there. She gave her statement, Ex. PD, to ASI Raghubir Chand PW, who then endorsed it, Ex. PD/1, and sent the prosecutrix’s statement, Ex. PD, to the police station in Raikot so that the case could be officially opened. SI Malkiat Singh then filed a formal FIR, Ex. PD/2, based on this information. The prosecutrix was thereafter taken by ASI Raghubir Chand, along with her mother, to the primary health facility in Pakhowal for a medical checkup.
When lady doctor Dr. Sukhwinder Kaur, examined her on 2.4.84, she discovered that the prosecutrix’s hymen was inflamed, painful, and lacerated with tiny rediate tears. There were also matched hairs on her pubic area. The doctor stated that having sex with the prosecutrix may be “one of the reasons for laceration which I found in her hymen.” She continued by saying that there was a chance the prosecutrix “was not habitual to intercourse earlier.”
In the course of the inquiry, the police confiscate a sealed package that the female physician had given them, which contains the prosecutrix’s salwar, five slides of vaginal smears, and one sealed phial containing the prosecutrix’s pubic hair. Following the prosecutrix’s argument, the investigating officer created a crude site map, Ex. PF, showing the location of her kidnapping. Additionally, the prosecutrix took the investigating officer to Ranjit Singh’s tubewell kotha, where she had been unjustly detained and sexually assaulted.
The Kotha Ex. PM’s draught site plan was created by the investigating officer. On 2.4.1984, a search was conducted for the accused, but they were not located. Additionally, on 3.4.1984, despite an ASI raid at their homes, they could not be located. Gurbachan Singh presented Jagjit Singh, also known as Bawa, and Ranjit Singh to the investigating officer on 5.4.1984, and Jagjit Singh appeared before Dr. B.L. Bansal for a medical examination the same day. According to the doctor, both of the accused were capable of engaging in sexual activity. Respondent Gurmit Singh was taken into custody by SI Malkiat Singh on 9.4.1984.
On September 4, 1998, Gurmit Singh underwent a medical examination by Dr. B.L. Bansal, who concluded that he was also well enough to engage in sexual activity. The prosecutrix’s salwar, pubic hair, and slides of vaginal smears were all placed in sealed bags and delivered to the chemical examiner. According to the chemical examiner’s findings, semen was discovered on the vaginal smear slides, but no spermatozoa were discovered on the prosecutrix’s salwar or pubic hair. Following the investigation’s conclusion, the respondents faced charges and challenges for violations of Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 of the IPC.
ISSUES
In the Supreme Court of India, the issue raised was,
- Whether the assertion of the prosecutrix must be certified further, or was she an honest witness under Section 118 and 114 of Evidence Act, 1872
- Whether the clinical assessment as proof was significant to the declaration of the prosecutrix?
- Whether the case was one of vengeance due to the prior hostility that emerged between the father of the prosecutrix and respondent?
- Whether the judgement of the preliminary Court was reasonable and well-substantiated considering all the evidence presented?
ARGUMENTS
By Appellant,
The appellant stated that the prosecutor was kidnapped and abused while she was in the tenth grade, and that she was under the age of sixteen. The three were abducted by a blue ambassador who threatened to kill them. The three convicted Ranjit, Gurmit Singh, and Bawa then instigated two separate attacks on the trio. Her father, Trilok Singh, called the sarpanch when the prosecutor told her mother about the entire episode. When the sarpanch was unable to obtain compensation from the victim, he filed a police case.
A female doctor had given her a thorough examination, examining her in great detail and presenting the prosecutor’s salwar, five slides of vaginal smears, one closed pial containing prosecutrix pubic hair that was discovered to be weighted, and the prosecutor’s hymn, which was swollen and sore, lacerated with fine radiating tears. The three suspects were given to Dr. B.L. Bansal, who conducted a follow-up examination the same day and recommended they be considered suitable for sexual relations.
According to the findings of the chemical inspector, there were sperm on the prosecutor’s genital sides. Since the speculum was only around two fingers wide, it was possible that the prosecutor had organised intercourse. The female expert had fixed the speculum of the vagina by obtaining swabs on the rear of the prosecutrix’s vaginal fornix in order to produce the slides.
The prosecutor stated in his testimony that he was driven to Pakhowal Adda by bus on a metre road, which may cause concern because it was under danger, and that it was the investigator’s responsibility to track down the driver as he left. To address the problem, the panchayats of the two villages have also been contacted. She would disclose the event to any outsider, which served as the prosecutor’s primary justification for calling the police, despite the fact that she was a young child and subject to community norms. Her family’s reputation in the community would also remain private.
By Respondent,
The statements provided by the respondents were documented in accordance with section 313 Cr. The P.C., where they publicly refuted the accusations made against the prosecutors. First, Jagjit Singh stated that the case was fabricated and that he was coerced into it by the sarpanch of the Pakhowal city and animosity.
He was accused of marrying a Canadian lady in the Gurudwara region who was unpopular with the sarpanch. Consequently, he was incarcerated for his unfaithfulness and did not have any friendship with her. The respondent, Gurmit Singh, stated that he was wrongfully impaled because to animosity between his father and the prosecutor’s father, Trilok Singh. He added that the father and the prosecutor’s father were embroiled in a legal lawsuit, and their families did not get along.
Due to uncertainty, he may have caused some people to arrest his nephew and daughter the next day, in which case Trilok Singh was obliged to beat him and made a vow to beat Trilok Singh once again. The reply of Ranjit Singh stated that he was found guilty of misbehaviour but did not provide an explanation for his suppression. In support of and as evidence that a copy of his passport and marriage licence with a Canadian woman also gave photographic proof of C&D evidence in his marriage to a Canadian lady, Jagjit Singh, better known by the moniker Bawa, called for Kuldeep Singh and Amarjit Singh. On the other hand, there was no proof against the second defendant.
JUDGEMENT
An accomplice and a prosecutrix in a sexual offence are not the same thing. She is actually the victim of the offence. There is no mention in the Evidence Act that her testimony cannot be accepted unless it is supported by relevant information. According to Section 118 of the Evidence Act, she is unquestionably a competent witness, and in circumstances of physical assault, her testimony must be given the same weight as that of an injured party. Her evidence must be evaluated with the same care and concern as that of an injured complainant or witness, and no more.
All three of the defendants were found guilty of violating Sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 of the IPC after the trial court’s challenged decision was overturned. The trial court’s strategy and the way it painted the prosecutrix’s character in disrepute are strongly disapproved of by the bench. As per the statement, courts are supposed to exercise restraint when documenting rulings that carry significant consequences for the victim of sexual assault in the future and wider ramifications for society, as it discourages the victim, encourages the offender, and rewards crime.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1046545/
This Article is written by Vaishnavi Kumari of New Law College, Bharatiya Vidyapeeth, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments