Appeal by wife against acquittal of husband in rape charges. High Court dismissed appeal, finding prosecution case suspicious due to date discrepancies, delayed FIR, and lack of physical injuries, upholding benefit of doubt.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondent No. 2 in rape charges maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
Date of decision: 11.01.2016
Sandeep Kaur
..... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
Prayer in the instant appeal filed by Sandeep Kaur-appellant (complainant) is for setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby respondent No. 2-Hardeep Singh was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 376-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015 -2-
against respondent No. 2 which was still pending. Simultaneously, respondent No. 2 also filed a divorce petition which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar. Upon her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellant-complainant was ordered to be given two rooms in the house of her husband i.e. respondent No. 2 in which she used to reside separately. Around 1.00 A.M. on 14.07.2013, in the midnight, respondent No. 2 forcibly entered into the room of appellant-complainant and committed rape upon her against her wishes by threatening her to keep mum otherwise she would be done to death. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 kept on maintaining illicit relations with her till 20.07.2013. On 20.07.2013, on the instigation of his mother Kulwinder Kaur, respondent No. 2 gave beatings to the appellantcomplainant and after committing rape upon her, turned her out of the matrimonial home. Respondent No. 2 and his mother also threatened the appellant-complainant that he will make her pregnant and that she will be turned out of the home by levelling false allegations on her character. Respondent No. 2 had also extra marital relations with other women. He threatened the appellant-complainant of having in possession her obscene movies and he would upload the same on internet.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
-3-
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, final report was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015 -4-
respondent No. 2 and his family members, but in due course their relations got strained. Resultantly, her parents stopped giving anything to respondent No. 2 and his family members. She further deposed that in the midnight of 14.09.2013, respondent No. 2 got opened the door of her room on the pretext that their baby was not feeling well. As soon as she opened that door, respondent No. 2 took possession of her phone and at the instigation of his mother, he gave beatings to the appellantcomplainant and he also made physical relations with her. Respondent No. 2 also told the appellant-complainant that he would make physical relations with her and transmit some disease as he was having relations with others also. The appellant-complainant also deposed that she was residing separately from the accused for the last two years.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
-5-
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015 -6-
pendency of aforesaid case, his father expired on 07.03.2012. The appellant-complainant was not even caring for the children and, thus, they were being educated and maintained by his mother. No occurrence as alleged by the appellant-complainant was ever taken place.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
-7-
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015 -8-
supported the prosecution story, while deposing that on 14.09.2013 to 20.09.2013, she was forcibly raped by respondent No. 2. The learned trial Court had erred in not relying upon her unblemished deposition, though it was well proved on record that appellant-complainant was residing separately from respondent No. 2, since, for the last 2 years. The ingredients of offence under Section 376-B read with Section 506 IPC against respondent No. 2 were well proved on record, because the appellant-complainant in her cross-examination too had deposed that respondent No. 2 had committed rape with her during the period from 14.09.2013 to 20.09.2013. The learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that Section 376B IPC envisages that whoever committed sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately, whether under a decree of separation or otherwise, without her consent is said to to have committed the offence under Section 376B IPC.
(i) In the initial complaint Ex. PA, the appellantcomplainant narrated her forcible rape by respondent No. 2 during the period from 14.07.2013 to 20.07.2013, but in the witness-box as PW-2 she deposed that the alleged occurrence took place in between 14.09.2013 to 20.09.2013. There is a vast difference of two months in the initial version given by
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
-9-
the appellant-complainant in her complainant Ex. PA and her deposition in Court as PW-2. The appellantcomplainant miserably failed to explain the same.
(ii) As per allegations of the appellant-complainant, she was raped for around 7 days by respondent No. 2 against her wishes from 14.09.2013 to 20.09.2013, but she kept mum. Even she did not disclose her woeful story to anyone and about misconduct and threats of respondent No. 2. The above conduct of the appellantcomplainant is highly improbable and unnatural because huge litigation i.e. divorce petition, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint under the Act was going on between the appellant-complainant and respondent No. 2.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
-10-
on the pretext of illness of their baby, in that case also it is unexplained on record that she was forcibly raped by him and why the appellant-complainant kept on opening the door for respondent No. 2 on the subsequent dates i.e. from 15.09.2013 to 20.09.2013, more particularly when relations were strained in between them and their children were also not staying with her and she kept on allowing respondent No. 2 to commit rape with her against her wishes.
(v) Admittedly, on earlier occasion also the appellantcomplainant got registered false FIR No. 300 dated 27.10.2009 under Sections 376/498-A/120-B IPC against respondent No. 2 and his parents in which they were acquitted. Hence, the above conduct of appellant-complainant also puts a dent in the prosecution story.
(vi) Even otherwise, FIR in the present case was lodged belatedly by the complainant, because as per her complaint Ex. PA, respondent No. 2 had committed rape with her on 14.07.2013, but FIR in the instant case was lodged on 24.09.2013. Even if, it is presumed that the dates of occurrences i.e. 14.07.2013 to 24.07.2013 were mentioned wrongly, in that eventuality, there is no explanation on the file why the prosecutrix kept mum for four days and got lodged the
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
-11-
FIR on 24.09.2013.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
-12-
more particularly when she was free to move anywhere without any restriction from any corner. Since, there was no restriction upon her to go anywhere so it was very easy for her to go to the police station to complain about her rape by respondent No. 2, but she did not do so which requires to draw an adverse inference against her that things did not happen in the manner as narrated by her.
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRA-D-1404-DB-2015
-13-
medical examination. The appellant-complainant never came to him to make statement about the incident rather he himself traced out her for getting her statement. The above conduct of the appellantcomplainant shows that after filing the complaint, she did not bother to make her statement to the police or had gone to the hospital for her medical examination.
( T.P.S. MANN ) ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE
January 11, 2016
rishu
RISHU KATARIA 2016.01.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the acquittal of the husband in rape charges framed under Section 376 IPC deserves allowance.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's finding of benefit of doubt despite inconsistent prosecution testimony.
Whether the delay in FIR and lack of corroborative evidence warrants setting aside the acquittal.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sandeep Kaur
State of Punjab
Hardeep Singh
T.P.S. MANN
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
