Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Pankaj Singh vs. State of Haryana (21 March 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 254

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J, Ujjal Bhuyan, J

Can a conviction for rape be sustained when the evidence of the prosecutrix is not entirely reliable, and the prosecution fails to produce crucial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the importance of credible evidence in sexual assault cases. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that the sexual act was non-consensual. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, Pankaj Singh, for offences under Sections 342, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The prosecutrix, a 28-year-old married graduate, alleged that the appellant, a friend of her husband’s brother, had raped her at a guest house in Bhiwani on 22nd May 2018. She claimed that after meeting at a bus stand in Hansi, the appellant offered her a ride to Bhiwani, but instead took her to a room in Jindal Guest House, where he committed the assault.

The prosecutrix further stated that the appellant took objectionable photographs of her and threatened to disclose them to her family if she spoke about the incident. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offences, sentencing him to life imprisonment for rape. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction, while the prosecutrix also appealed against the acquittal of the appellant for offences under Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii), and 506 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 342, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, confirming the conviction and acquittal. Both the appellant and the prosecutrix filed appeals before the High Court, which were dismissed. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines and provides punishment for the offence of rape. The court specifically referred to sub-section (2)(f), which deals with rape by a person in a position of trust, and sub-section (1) which deals with simple rape.

  “376. PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE.—(1)*** (2) Whoever,-…(f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or…………”

• Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption of absence of consent in certain rape prosecutions. It states that if the prosecutrix testifies that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent, provided the case falls under the clauses mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

  “114A. PRESUMPTION AS TO ABSENCE OF CONSENT IN CERTAIN PROSECUTION FOR RAPE.–In a prosecution for rape under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g), clause (h), clause (i), clause (j), clause (k), clause (l), clause (m) or clause (n) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. Explanation.–In this section, “sexual intercourse” shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

• Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows for the admission of certain documents without formal proof if their genuineness is not disputed.

  “294. NO FORMAL PROOF OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.—(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”

• Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of electronic records, requiring a certificate for their validity.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual.
• The prosecutrix willingly accompanied the appellant from place to place.
• The CCTV footage of the guest house would have shown that both entered and left happily, and the prosecution’s failure to produce this evidence suggests it would have been unfavorable to their case.
• The evidence of the prosecutrix should be rejected because of the inconsistencies and the fact that she did not raise any alarm or protest.

State’s Arguments:

• The prosecutrix’s evidence establishes that there was forcible sexual intercourse.
• The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix does not invalidate her testimony.
• There is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

Prosecutrix’s Arguments:

• The WhatsApp conversation between the prosecutrix and the appellant is admissible under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the appellant did not object to its production.
• The presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should be applied, as the appellant was in a position of trust, and the sexual intercourse was without consent.
• The appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove his innocence.

The prosecutrix argued that the appellant was in a position of trust because of their acquaintance through her husband’s brother. She claimed that this relationship should invoke the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant to prove that the intercourse was consensual.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the prosecutrix.
2. Whether the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable in this case.
3. Whether the WhatsApp conversation is admissible as evidence under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court examined the provisions relating to the punishment for rape.
• Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court analyzed the conditions for the presumption of absence of consent in rape cases.
• Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The court discussed the procedure for admitting documents without formal proof.
• Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court noted the requirement for a certificate for electronic records.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that the charge was not under sub-section (2)(f) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is a condition precedent to invoke section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Court held that the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable as the accused was not charged under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties.
• The Court held that the procedure under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not followed, and therefore the WhatsApp messages are not admissible.
• The Court held that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was produced, and therefore the WhatsApp messages are not admissible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases, especially in sexual assault cases, and highlighted the prosecution’s failure to produce crucial evidence, such as the CCTV footage from the guest house. The Court also noted the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix’s body, which contradicted her claim of resistance. Additionally, the court considered the prosecutrix’s behavior before, during, and after the alleged incident, which did not align with the actions of a victim of sexual assault.

The Court also noted that the prosecutrix and the appellant were in constant communication with each other before, during, and after the incident. The court found that the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the appellant from place to place without any protest. The court also noted that the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm or protest while leaving the guest house. The court also noted that the prosecutrix had signed the hotel register while leaving the hotel with the appellant. The court also noted that the prosecutrix and the appellant had posed as husband and wife while entering the hotel. All this led the court to believe that the prosecutrix’s testimony was not reliable.

Fact:Law Ratio: The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony and the lack of supporting evidence, than by legal considerations. The court’s analysis of the facts played a crucial role in its determination that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment Analysis

The Supreme Court overturned the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, emphasizing the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal trials. The Court highlighted that the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could not be invoked in this case as the appellant was not charged under the relevant provision of Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also found that the WhatsApp messages were not admissible as the procedure under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not followed and no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was produced.

The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony unreliable, noting several inconsistencies and contradictions. The Court also noted the absence of injuries on her body and the fact that she did not raise any alarm or protest while leaving the guest house. The court also noted that the prosecutrix had signed the hotel register while leaving the hotel with the appellant. The court also noted that the prosecutrix and the appellant had posed as husband and wife while entering the hotel. The court also noted that the prosecutrix and the appellant were in constant communication with each other before, during, and after the incident. The court also noted that the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the appellant from place to place without any protest.

The Court stated, “In this case, no charge was framed against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC.”

The Court further observed, “Therefore, on the face of it, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not apply, and, therefore, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix.”

The Court also stated, “The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that it is very unsafe to rely upon the testimony of the Prosecutrix in this case.”

The Court rejected the argument that the appellant was in a position of trust, stating, “There was no fiduciary relationship between the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix.”

The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to produce the CCTV footage of the guest house, stating, “The prosecution had no reason to withhold such an important piece of evidence.”

The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to discharge this burden in this case.

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and consistent.
• The presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is only applicable when the accused is charged under the relevant provisions of Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The prosecution must produce all relevant evidence, including CCTV footage, to support its case.
• Electronic records, such as WhatsApp messages, must be supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to be admissible in court.
• The court has the discretion to read or not to read a document in evidence even if it is not disputed under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, who was on bail, be released, and his bail bond be cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and consistent. The court also held that the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is only applicable when the accused is charged under the relevant provisions of Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also held that electronic records, such as WhatsApp messages, must be supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to be admissible in court.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It also clarifies the conditions under which the presumption of absence of consent can be invoked in rape cases. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of producing all relevant evidence in court and following the proper procedures for admitting electronic records.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant highlights the critical need for credible evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases of sexual assault. The Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony unreliable and noted the prosecution’s failure to produce key evidence. This judgment serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.