PRAKASH V/S THE STATE OF HARYANA (2004) 1 SCC 339

Citation	(2004) 1 SCC 339
Date of Judgment	2nd December 2003
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Criminal Appeal No.390 of 1997
Appellant	Prakash
Respondent	State of Haryana
Bench	Doraiswamy Raju and Dr. Arijit Pasayat, JJ
Referred	Section- 363, 366, 376, 511

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Prakash v. State of Haryana, the accused appellant and another person were charged with offenses of kidnapping and attempted rape under sections 363, 366, and 376 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The victim, a 5-year-old child, was lured away from her house and subsequently found by her grandmother in a state of undress with the accused appellant laying on top and the acquitted accused standing in proximity. 

The accused pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The trial court charged the accused and gave out a custodial sentence despite his defense . The first accused, however, was not adequately described in the initial report, leading to his benefit of doubt. The accused appellant appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where convictions under sections 363 and 366 were upheld, but the conviction under section 376 read with section 511 was set aside.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary legal issues in this case include the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the charges of kidnapping and attempted rape, the credibility of the grandmother’s testimony, and the impact of the lack of proper description of the first accused in the initial report.

ARGUMENTS 

Appellant Lawyer’s Arguments in Prakash v. State of Haryana:

In the appeal on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel presented several key arguments to challenge the convictions and to seek a favorable outcome for Prakash:

1. Inconsistencies and Improvements in Prosecution’s Case:

   The counsel contended that the prosecution’s case suffered from inconsistencies and attempts to improve its narrative at different stages. They pointed out that while there was no mention during the investigation that the accused took the victim by patting his hand on her mouth, such a detail emerged only during the court proceedings. This suggests an attempt to enhance the prosecution’s case for dramatic effect rather than presenting consistent and reliable evidence.

2. Insufficient Proof for Convictions under Sections 363 and 366:

   The appellant’s lawyer argued that the essential elements required for establishing offenses under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage) of the IPC have not been adequately demonstrated. They contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, raising doubts about the accused’s involvement in these specific offenses.

3. Unnatural Behavior of the Eyewitness (PW5 – Grandmother):

   The counsel highlighted the apparent unnatural behavior of the prosecution’s main eyewitness, the victim’s grandmother (PW5). It was argued that it is highly unlikely for a grandmother who discovers her granddaughter being assaulted by an individual to remain silent and not take any immediate action to protect the child. This unusual behavior casts doubt on the credibility of the eyewitness’s account and the accuracy of her observations.

4. Pending Litigation and Potential Bias:

The lawyer brought attention to the ongoing litigation between the appellant’s family and the victim’s family. The existence of this legal dispute raises concerns about potential bias and motives that could influence the testimony and perspective of those involved. The courts should have considered this factor as it could impact the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

5. Defects in Eyewitness’s Sight and Hearing:

The counsel questioned the reliability of the eyewitness’s (PW5) account, pointing out that she had defective eyesight and was hard of hearing. It was argued that given her impaired senses, it is improbable that she could accurately perceive and interpret the events, including the child’s crying, especially if her ability to hear and see was compromised.

In summary, the appellant’s lawyer sought to establish reasonable doubt by highlighting inconsistencies, potential bias, and the unreliability of the prosecution’s main eyewitness. These arguments aimed to challenge the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and raise doubts about the appellant’s guilt.

Respondent Lawyer’s Response in Prakash v. State of Haryana:

In response to the appellant’s arguments, the counsel representing the respondent State provided the following counterpoints and justifications to support the convictions and uphold the prosecution’s case:

1. Credibility of Eyewitness (PW5):

   The respondent’s counsel affirmed that the testimony of PW5, the victim’s grandmother and eyewitness, is both cogent and trustworthy. They argued that her account of the events is consistent and reliable, portraying a clear picture of what transpired. Her natural behavior of searching for the child upon noticing her absence underscores the authenticity of her testimony.

2. Timing and Circumstances of the Incident:

   The respondent’s lawyer emphasized the timing and circumstances surrounding the incident. The victim was playing outside at 1:30 pm, and her sudden absence prompted her grandmother to go searching for her. This behavior is entirely consistent with a concerned guardian’s reaction. The fact that the child was subsequently found undressed at the accused’s house adds weight to the prosecution’s claim that she was taken away unlawfully.

3. Relevance of the Manner of Abduction:

   The counsel contended that the specific manner in which the child was taken away, whether by patting her mouth or otherwise, is of limited relevance. The core of the offense is the unlawful taking away of a child from the lawful custody of her guardians. The manner in which this was accomplished may not alter the essential nature of the offense, and the evidence supporting the abduction itself is clear.

4. Gravamen of the Offense

   The respondent’s lawyer stressed that the gravamen (essence) of the offense lies in the act of taking a child away from her lawful guardians’ custody. The evidence presented clearly establishes that the child was taken from her home and was found undressed at the accused’s residence. This is sufficient to establish the core elements of the kidnapping offense.

5. Upholding the Convictions:

   The counsel concluded by asserting that the evidence on record supports the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. They argued that the prosecution has met the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the credible eyewitness account, the circumstances of the incident, and the recovered evidence. As such, the counsel maintained that the convictions should be upheld.

In summary, the respondent’s lawyer countered the appellant’s arguments by reiterating the credibility of the eyewitness, emphasizing the relevant facts and circumstances of the incident, and asserting the core elements of the offense. The counsel’s response aimed to strengthen the prosecution’s case and maintain the upheld convictions under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.

JUDGEMENT

Judgment in Prakash v. State of Haryana

In the case of Prakash (Appellant) v. State of Haryana (Respondent), the appellate court has reached a decision based on the arguments presented by both the appellant and the respondent. The judgment outlines the court’s analysis of the evidence and legal principles, leading to the final conclusion.

The court’s judgment can be summarized as follows:

1. Credibility of Eyewitness (PW5 – Grandmother):

   Both the trial court and the High Court thoroughly examined the evidence provided by PW5, the grandmother of the victim. Despite the assertion that there were differences between the accused and the victim’s father due to a dispute, the court found it highly improbable that a 5½-year-old child would be used as a pawn for false implication, given the potential disrepute and stigma she would suffer for the rest of her life. The court acknowledged the essence of credibility and truthfulness in PW3’s evidence, which explained how she came across the victim and heard her cries.

2. Value of Eyewitness’s Testimony (PW5):

   The court rejected the appellant’s argument that because nobody else had heard the victim’s cries or responded to them, PW5’s testimony should be discarded. The court affirmed that the absence of other witnesses does not invalidate the credibility of a single witness, particularly when the eyewitness account is detailed and consistent. The court held that the trial courts were justified in acting upon PW5’s evidence.

3. Conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC:

   The court assessed the evidence in light of the legal principles and concluded that the essential elements required for the offenses under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage) of the IPC had been established. The court found that the evidence on record supported the convictions, and therefore, the trial court and the High Court were justified in convicting the accused appellant.

4. Sentence and Offense Nature:

   The court noted that the imposed sentence appeared to be lenient considering the heinous nature of the offense. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offense and the potential harm caused to the victim.

5. Disposition of the Appeal:

   The court found the appellant’s appeal to be without merit and dismissed it. The judgments of the trial court and the High Court were upheld, affirming the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.

In summary, the judgment concludes that the evidence presented, particularly the credible eyewitness testimony, supports the convictions of the accused appellant under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the High Court.

REFERENCES

https://www.casemine.com

https://ww.scconline.com

This Article is written by Brishni Neog of University Law College, Gauhati University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.