2013 (4) TMI 948 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in lodging the FIR.
2. Evaluation of evidence and medical reports.
3. Reasoning and adherence to procedural requirements by the Trial Court and High Court.
4. Judicial insensitivity and perverse findings.

Summary:

1. Delay in lodging the FIR:
The Trial Court acquitted the Respondents-Accused citing an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed three days after the incident. The Appellant provided a complete explanation for the delay, stating that she was unconscious and her statement was recorded on 9.2.1995 by Sub-Inspector Kabala Singh (PW-13).

2. Evaluation of evidence and medical reports:
The Trial Court noted the medical evidence provided by Dr. Tejwinder Singh (PW-1) and Dr. Karnail Kaur (PW-9), which indicated injuries consistent with the Appellant's allegations of rape and assault. Despite this, the Trial Court concluded there was no cogent evidence of rape by the accused, reasoning that it was improbable for a father and son to commit rape together.

3. Reasoning and adherence to procedural requirements by the Trial Court and High Court:
The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court failed to provide sound reasoning for the acquittal and did not adhere to the procedural requirements u/s 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment lacked proper evaluation of evidence and reasons for the conclusions. The High Court also failed to consider the gravity of the charges and was influenced by the State's failure to appeal the acquittal.

4. Judicial insensitivity and perverse findings:
The Supreme Court criticized the judicial insensitivity shown by both the Trial Court and the High Court. The Trial Court's view that a father and son cannot rape a victim together was deemed unreasonable and not a valid ground for acquittal. The judgments were labeled as perverse for ignoring relevant evidence and failing to provide a reasoned judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. The Trial Court is directed to hear arguments from both sides, evaluate all evidence, and record findings in accordance with the law within three months. No observations made in this order should influence the Trial Court's decision on the merits of the case.