"No Evidence" : Supreme Court Acquits Two Men Accused In 26 Year Old Rape Case

The Supreme Court acquitted two men accused in a rape case observing that there was no evidence brought on record to connect them with the offence.

Avtar Singh, Sohan Lal and Gian Singh were accused of raping the prosecutrix. The prosecution case was that on 22.07.1996, at about 8 PM, when the woman had gone near a maize field, Avtar Singh forcefully took her away after making her unconscious and took her to a room. She was raped by Avtar Singh who threatened her with a knife. Next day, Gian Singh raped her and later in the day, Sohan Lal and Avtar Singh raped her. On 24.07.1996 morning, she was taken to a maize field and Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal took turns to rape her.

The Trial Court acquitted Gian Singh and convicted the other two accused under Section 342 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Trial Court judgment.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the story projected by the prosecution that she was raped by Gian Singh during the daytime on 23.07.1996, was disbelieved by the trial court.

"Gian Singh was acquitted by the trial court noticing the stand of the prosecutrix that there was party faction in the village and both the parties belonged to different sections. The same reasoning will apply to the appellants as well for the reason that in the FIR, the stand taken by the prosecutrix is same in respect of all the accused, as far as the allegation of party faction is concerned", the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed.

The bench observed that the acquittal of Gian Singh has "broken the chain of events and falsified the story projected by the prosecutrix". 

The court also noted that the room in which the prosecutrix was allegedly detained and raped for two days by three persons is located in an under-construction haveli of Gian Singh where labourers were working throughout the day. The court observed thus:

"Despite this fact, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm. The stand of the prosecutrix in her statement was that she neither drank water, nor had she eaten anything for three days. She remained in the illegal custody of the accused and was raped repeatedly for three days, against her wishes. When considered in the light of her medical examination, the said statement is falsified as the doctor noted that she was well-built and well-nourished.",

"Once the involvement of Gian Singh is taken out from the entire story, the deduction would be that the prosecutrix may have been alone in the room throughout the day on 23.07.1996, admittedly at a place, where construction activity was going on all day long. No alarm was raised by the prosecutrix. Even in her statement, Bakshish Kaur (PW6), mother of the prosecutrix had stated that “the kothi (haveli) was under construction and labourers were working on the roof as well as inside.” The statement of the prosecutrix that she was raped throughout the day in open in a field where ‘Bajra’ crop was standing, is not found to be plausible or persuasive. As per the evidence led by the prosecution, the ‘Bajra’ field was adjoining the haveli of Gian Singh, where construction activity was going on at the level of the first floor and the area all around was visible. If any such incident had taken place, the prosecutrix being in an open field, could have very well raised an alarm."

The court also noted that no external/internal injury was found on her body and even on her private parts and that the doctor stated that the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse. Certain discrepancies in the witness statements were also taken into account.

"This is not to say that the version of a victim of a sexual offence ought to be disbelieved only because she has had an active sexual life. In the instant case, the surrounding circumstances pointed out above, discredit the version of the prosecutrix.", the bench observed while acquitting the accused.

Case details

Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 | 2023 INSC 666

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) - Criminal Appeal against concurrent conviction in rape case - There was no evidence brought on record to connect the present appellants with the offence - Accused Acquitted

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment