Shocked Conscience Of Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Flags “Unacceptable Lapses” Over Convict's Acquittal After Completion Of Sentence

Observing that the case "shocked the conscience" of the Court, the Punjab & Haryana High Court flagged "the protracted delay" in the listing of appeals wherein a rape convict was acquitted by the High Court after completion of his entire sentence.

The Court acquitted the convict stating that the prosecution failed to prove its case and the circumstances indicate that they were in a consensual relationship.  

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar highlighted the plight of the convict who was a poor labourer who could not engage a private counsel due to a lack of resources and filed his appeal against conviction in the High Court back in 2010 through a legal aid counsel.

The application for suspension of sentence was dismissed in 2012. However, the High Court Legal Services Committee failed to take appropriate steps to secure a hearing for the release of the appellant, the Court observed.

Adding that the matter was listed out of turn after the lapse of 14 years while the convict was still in jail and  completed the sentence, the Court said, "This delay has highlighted an unacceptable lapse in securing the ends of justice which has gravely undermined the appellant's personal liberty and has shocked the conscience of this Court."

Consequently, the judge directed to put the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action, which may be deemed necessary, in similar cases. 

The case pertains to an FIR lodged in 2009 for allegedly committing rape and kidnapping of an alleged 14-year-old girl. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court in 2009 under Sections  363, 365, 366-A, and 376 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years for each offence.

After examining the submissions and the material available on record, the Court noted that the matter at hand pertains to the era when the age of consent was sixteen years of age and found material lacunas in the case of the prosecution.

It noted further that the alleged kidnapping took place on 23.11.2009 and the date of birth of the prosecutrix is claimed to be 01.05.1996.

The Court observed that the prosecution has relied upon the school certificate in order to prove the minority of the prosecutrix, but the person, who prepared the said certificate, has not been examined and an ossification test was also not conducted.

It also pointed out that the parents of the prosecutrix have given vague statements as to when she was born.

"The complainant has stated that the prosecutrix was born two and a half years after marriage, which was solemnized twenty years ago. In view of the same, it cannot be conclusively said that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident since it has not been proved that the entry in the school record was made after looking at a credible source of information, in terms of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children), 2015 (hereinafter 'JJ Act, 2015')," the bench said.

Justice Brar found material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

The Court noted that the brother of the prosecutrix stated that he left her with the accused because he wanted to marry her.

"It is unfathomable how a brother would leave his own sister with someone who had allegedly abducted him. Such unnatural conduct on part of the brother of the prosecutrix casts serious doubts on the prosecution case," the Court observed.

It noted that the complainant party has alleged that the appellant used to visit the prosecutrix, committed rape on several occasions and forced her to elope.

The judge observed that if the prosecutrix was being repeatedly sexually harassed by the appellant, it does not seem probable that she would run away with him in order to solemnize marriage.

"On her medical examination, it was found that she is 4-5 months pregnant. However, the circumstances indicate that the appellant and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship, therefore the factum of pregnancy does not assist the prosecution by any stretch of imagination," the Court added.

In light of the above, the Court opined that "the prosecution case fails to meet objective standards of reason."

Mr. Jagmohan S. Ghumman, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikas Bharadwaj, AAG Haryana.

Title: XXX v. XXXX [CRA-S-12-SB-2011]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 283