Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Davinder Singh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar for offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The conviction was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. The prosecution case was that on 15.03.2000, the appellant entered the residence of the prosecutrix (PW6) and committed rape while brandishing a knife. The brother of the prosecutrix, Pargat Singh, arrived and the appellant fled. Later, the appellant along with co-accused went to the uncle's residence where the prosecutrix was staying and threatened her. A complaint was lodged on 13.04.2000, resulting in FIR No.60/2000. The trial court examined ten prosecution witnesses, but the sole eye-witness Pargat Singh was not examined. The appellant argued that there was no recovery of the weapon, no external injuries on the prosecutrix, inordinate delay in filing the complaint, and non-examination of material witnesses. The State contended that the concurrent findings should not be interfered with. The Supreme Court found that the delay of 28 days was unexplained, the complaint was given by the father (PW4) who was not present, and the uncle Satnam Singh was also not examined. The court held that non-examination of the sole eye-witness Pargat Singh was fatal to the prosecution case, drawing an adverse inference as per Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing. The court also noted the improbability of the appellant taking accomplices after committing rape. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction - Non-examination of material witness - The sole eye-witness, brother of the prosecutrix, was not examined by the prosecution - Held that non-examination of a material witness who could unfold the genesis of the incident obliges the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution - Reliance placed on Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145 (Paras 8-9). B) Criminal Law - Delay in lodging FIR - Inordinate delay of 28 days in filing complaint - Reasons assigned not acceptable - Held that unexplained delay casts doubt on the prosecution case (Para 8). C) Criminal Law - Rape - Credibility of prosecutrix - Absence of external injuries, non-recovery of weapon, and improbable conduct of taking accomplices after earlier offence - Held that the evidence of prosecutrix must be scrutinized with care in such circumstances (Para 8). D) Criminal Law - Compromise - Subsequent compromise between parties - Not a ground to acquit but may be considered in sentencing - However, in this case, the prosecution case itself was found doubtful (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC is sustainable in light of non-examination of the sole eye-witness and inordinate delay in filing the complaint.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Non-examination of material witness
- delay in lodging FIR
- adverse inference
- credibility of prosecutrix
- compromise in criminal cases
