Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (22 June 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 22 June 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 585

Judges: Hon’ble Justices Surya Kant and M.M. Sundresh

Can a conviction for rape be upheld when key witnesses are not examined and there is a significant delay in filing the complaint? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, highlighting the importance of corroborative evidence and the need to examine all material witnesses in a criminal trial. This case involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for rape, among other charges, where the court found the prosecution’s case to be lacking in several aspects. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and M.M. Sundresh, with Justice M.M. Sundresh authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The prosecution’s case is that on March 15, 2000, the appellant, Davinder Singh, allegedly committed rape at the prosecutrix’s residence while brandishing a knife. The prosecutrix’s brother, Pargat Singh, witnessed the incident, causing the appellant to flee. The prosecutrix’s father, PW4, initially filed a complaint only about a quarrel, intending to protect his daughter’s dignity. Subsequently, on April 13, 2000, a second complaint was filed, alleging that the appellant, along with others, threatened the prosecutrix at her uncle’s residence, where she was temporarily staying. This led to the registration of FIR No. 60/2000 under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 452, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape charge. This decision was upheld by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines and provides punishment for the offense of rape.
• Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case was doubtful due to the non-recovery of the alleged weapon and the non-examination of Pargat Singh, the prosecutrix’s brother, who was the only eye-witness.
• It was pointed out that there were no external injuries on the prosecutrix, and there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court erred in stating that the appellant took co-accused persons to the uncle’s residence of the prosecutrix to commit the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when it was not the prosecution’s case.
• The fact that the parties had compromised the matter in 2013 was also brought to the Court’s attention.
• The High Court was criticised for not properly analysing the evidence on record and dealing with the matter in a cursory manner.
• The counsel also noted that the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, Satnam Singh, was not examined.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State’s counsel argued that the findings of the lower courts were concurrent and there was no perversity, hence no need for interference by the Supreme Court.
• It was argued that subsequent arrangements between the parties would not affect the case and are not permissible under law.
• The State’s counsel submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court rightly relied on the evidence of PW4 and PW6 (the prosecutrix).
• The State contended that in the absence of any enmity or motive, the evidence of PW6 was correctly found to be favourable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue addressed by the court was:

• Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the available evidence and circumstances, was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing [CITATION] to highlight the importance of examining material witnesses and drawing adverse inferences for non-examination.
• The Court used Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION] to emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity and to define “evidence” and “matters” under the Evidence Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Non-Examination of Material Witnesses: The court noted the prosecution’s failure to examine Pargat Singh, the brother of the prosecutrix and the only eye-witness, as well as the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, Satnam Singh. This was seen as a significant deficiency in the prosecution’s case.
• Delay in Filing the Complaint: The court found the 28-day delay in filing the complaint to be unreasonable and the reasons provided for the delay illogical.
• Inconsistencies in Evidence: The court highlighted the inconsistencies between the prosecution’s case and the evidence presented, particularly the High Court’s incorrect finding that the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, occurred at the uncle’s residence.
• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The court noted the lack of external injuries on the prosecutrix and the non-recovery of the alleged weapon, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Probable motive of False Implication: The court noted that the evidence suggested that the father of the prosecutrix was not willing to give his daughter in marriage to the appellant, which could be a motive for false implication.

Fact:Law

The court’s reasoning was that the prosecution’s case did not meet the required standard of proof due to the absence of crucial evidence and the presence of several inconsistencies. The court emphasized that while the evidence of the prosecutrix is important, it must be examined contextually and must satisfy the conscience of the court. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. The court also noted that the High Court had made a factual error by stating that the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was committed at the uncle’s residence, which was not the prosecution’s case at all.

The Supreme Court stated, “The case of the prosecution, as projected, does not conform to the degree of probability. There is no doubt that the evidence of the prosecutrix will have to be kept at a higher pedestal but then, such a testimony will have to satisfy the conscience of the Court. It has to be seen contextually in the light of the other evidence available.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “If they feel no action was taken after the alleged occurrence and the matter was compromised as projected by the prosecution, there would have been other independent witnesses as well. The prosecution has not produced any such witness.”

The Supreme Court also stated, “The Courts below have not considered the evidence available on record in the proper perspective. They got carried away by the statement made by PW6.”

Key Takeaways

• The non-examination of material witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Delays in filing complaints must be reasonably explained, and unexplained delays can cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.
• The testimony of the prosecutrix, while important, must be corroborated by other evidence and must satisfy the conscience of the court.
• Courts must carefully analyze all evidence and not rely solely on the testimony of the victim.
• Factual errors in lower court judgments can lead to the overturning of convictions by higher courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the bail bond was discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if there are significant gaps in the prosecution’s case, such as the non-examination of material witnesses, unexplained delays in filing complaints, and inconsistencies in the evidence. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court must carefully examine all evidence before reaching a conviction. This decision does not change any previous position of law, but rather reinforces the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab highlights the critical importance of a thorough and well-supported prosecution case. The acquittal of the appellant underscores the need for courts to consider all evidence, including the non-examination of material witnesses and unexplained delays, and not solely rely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal cases and the need for a fair and just legal process.