This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the judgment passed by the Honorable High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Additional Session Judge, Barnala while affirming the conviction granted by the court for rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine up to Rs. 2000 under section 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant herein was lady residing with her child and mother and was a single lady; she also mentioned that she was living in a house with a young boy as her tenant-right next to her house. The appellant herein called in the prosecutrix to her house in compelled her to have illicit sex with a rich tenant boy and offered her clothes and trip in return for such an act. The prosecutrix registered a police compliant one week after such an incident. The appellant herein pushed the prosecutrix into the room and locked the door from outside where after the prosecutrix started screaming, and 5 minutes later to this the door was unlocked by her father who in the matter was a witness this incident took place on the morning of 19/02/1996 at 6.00 am. The tenant boy escaped after such act by running at the ex moment of hindsight. The father of the prosecutrix dismayed and roared at the by standing appellant believing she is director of such act. The father who believed this would ruin their reputation in the society remained silent and returned back home until the day of 24th February 1996 when the appellant her in threatened to kill her brother of she reports the matter to anyone. The prosecutrix ran the very point and was successful in saving herself from the clutches of the appellant, falling fatal to such behaviours of highhandedness of the appellant and in fear of any other harm she with her father went to the police station and lodged the complaint against the two, i.e. the appellant and the tenant boy about the incident and threats.
- Was the act sexual abuse been committed on prosecutrix?
- Was the Additional Session Judge appropriately dealt with the matter?
- Whether High Court contentions and dismissal valid?
The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above state by way of video conferencing and states that the earlier court did not pay thorough attention to some aspects of the matter which plays a greater role in deciding the matter, either the decision taken by the earlier court has taken such decision hastily. Before respecting the contention that was submitted is vital importance that submission by the learned counsel wherein it states that the state counsels have wrongly relied on the facts of the matter and another uncertain result of the cross-examination that was conducted wherein the PW himself has denied some its findings and conclusion. Further, the court suggests that the reasoning provided in the matter is generic and premised build upon generalization on which the High Court has relied on which may not be always true or show the true and fair view of the matter.
It is true that the parent would not be involved in the dirty act of accusation which might result in rupturing the reputation of their child, but such clichés should not be the sole basis to decide any matter where the reasonable doubt has been established to decide the matter in any one’s favor. The reasonableness of the duration before filing has to be taken into consideration which has a reason to believe no father of any child will wait for five days to lodge a complaint against any person who has committed such heinous crime on his own child. The court has all reason to believe that neither section 366A if the Indian Penal Code has anything to do with sexual abuse in itself neither such cold behavior of the prosecutrix and her father has poised any confidence in the matter which is one of the reasons for the court to doubt the story of the prosecutrix. Further the Court finds it difficult to understand the capacity of two male associates the prosecutrix’s father had failed to stop the allegedly tenant boy from escaping and also there no evidence for court to believe that there was no effort made by the associated and the father of the prosecutrix to find the boy later or at least file a complaint with the police station. This finding by the court in the matter provides a suspicion on the prosecutrix in making malicious case of the rape and seeking justice when turn has personal vendetta or other probable intention. There is no record that will prove the appellant’s guilt and to held her liable for any offence mentioned by the prosecutrix in her story. After her father lodged a police complaint there not substantial evidence submitted by the police against the appellant. The matter makes it high doubtful that after so many months of residence of the tenant the police could not even figure out the name or any other information about the tenant. Further in the observation of the court it made it clear that the description provided by the plaintiff witness 1 and 2 are totally different which further led to doubt that whether there boy even exist or it was just additional way to buttressed the facts in seeking a judgment.
The Supreme Court in it finding affirms that the prosecution in here failed to prove the burden of the facts on them and find there exist no case apart from some manufactured an anecdotal and no facts, supporting evidence and witness testimony could be believed in proving the offences under section 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The court allows the appeal and set aside the order given by the earlier court.