Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 794 - SUPREME COURTMalicious prosecution of sexual abuses - Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis - Failure to refute Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure statement - Shoddy investigation and prosecution - Charge of Criminal Intimidation. Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis - HELD THAT:- It is found from the impugned orders that the Courts below failed in making the desired attempt to delve deep into the factual matrix of this case. Many aspects have completely been ignored or only dealt with hastily. Further, the reasoning is generic and is premised upon generalisations which may not be necessarily true always. It is indisputable that parents would not ordinarily endanger the reputation of their minor daughter merely to falsely implicate their opponents, but such cliches ought not to be the sole basis of dismissing reasonable doubts created and/or defences set out by the Accused. It is beyond comprehension that the prosecutrix's father and his two male associates failed to stop the tenant boy who was allegedly about to commit a sexual offence with the minor victim and neither did they later make any attempt to even register a complaint against him - the father of the prosecutrix merely registered his protest to the Appellant on the scene, instead of reacting instinctively and approaching police authorities when faced with possible trafficking of his daughter. This conduct of belatedly proceeding against only the prosecutrix creates a lurking suspicion against the prosecution case and it may not be totally improbable to infer that it was a malicious attempt at the behest of Bhola Singh to falsely implicate a weak rape victim and stifle her ability to seek justice. Shoddy investigation and prosecution - HELD THAT:- The trial Court has summarily disregarded the contradictions highlighted by the defense side, on the premise that such contradictions had no material bearing and that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix. The High Court too has opined that PW-1 and PW-2 have completely corroborated each other and their testimonies were impeccable. These reasons are not only contrary to the record but they also lead to an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof imposed in criminal trials. There are numerous clear contradictions between the testimonies of these two star-witnesses, which we find fatal to the prosecution case - In addition to these inconsistencies which cast a serious shadow of doubt over the version of events put forth by the prosecution, the accounts of PW-1 and PW-2 are superficial and lack detail. Important links of the story, including what happened in the crucial five minutes when the girl was locked inside the room or how the male tenant reacted, are missing. Failure to refute Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure statement - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand, the alternate version given by the Appellant could not be lightly brushed aside. Her two-part defence, put succinctly, was that first there was no male tenant at all and no one except for her child and mother lived with her, and second, that she was being falsely implicated as vengeance for filing a rape complaint against one Bhola Singh with whom the prosecutrix's father used to work - Reliance on mere admission by DW-1 during cross-examination that PW-2 was a government employee, neither negates the defense of false implication nor does it imply that PW-2 couldn't be working with Bhola Singh in a part-time/casual capacity or staying in Bhola Singh's house. Thus, the trial Court's analysis of the Appellant's Section 313 defence ought to have been deeper, before concluding it as being false or untrustworthy. Charge of Criminal Intimidation - HELD THAT:- Proving the intention of the Appellant to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a pre-requisite of successful conviction Under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has undertaken no such separate analysis or recorded any finding on this count, thus calling into question the conviction for criminal intimidation. Further, the nature of this charge is such that it is a derivative of the main charge of 'procuration of minor girls'. Given the facts of this case where the common testimony of PW-1 on both charges has been doubted, it would be unwise to rely upon it as the sole piece of evidence to convict the Appellant for criminal intimidation without any other corroboration. In the facts of the present case, neither is Section 366A by itself a sexual offence in the strict sense nor do the inactions of the prosecutrix or her father inspire confidence on genuineness of the prosecution story. No steps were taken to avail of medical examination of the victim, nor was the Panchayat or any social forum approached for any form of redress till the occurrence of the second alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the Appellant Under Section 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt - the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below are set aside - appeal allowed.
|