LexCHARANJIT & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 10 S.C.R. 688 CHARANJIT & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2007) JULY 4, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.323134, 504134, 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g) - Appellant-police officials picked up PW3 for C interrogation and detained her in the police station at night, and then tortured and raped her - PW3 was released only on the next day when the village panchayat intervened - Conviction of appellants by Courts below - Justification - Held: Justified - Testimony of PW-3 was corroborated by the o evidence of her husband (PW-1) and neighbor (PW-2) - Appellants failed to produce relevant records in defence - Statement made by PW3 in inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police cannot be used to contradict her evidence in the Court - No proof that PW3 made a/legations E against the appellants on the pressure of others - PW-3 took consistent stand in her petition to the Governor made within few days of her release from Police Station, in her complaint before the Magistrate and her evidence in Court - Both trial court and the High Court found that soon after PW3 was F released from the Police Station, she stated before PWs-1 and 2 that she had been raped by the appellants and that she was bleeding profusely - Trial court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings of facts while holding the appellants guilty- Though powers of Supreme Court u/Article G 136 of the Constitution are very wide, in criminal appeals the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of facts, save in exceptional circumstances where there has been grave miscarriage of justice - In the case at hand, concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial court and the H 688 CHARANJIT & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 689 High Court are based on legal evidence and there is no A miscarriage of justice as such by the two courts while arriving at said findings - Impugned judgment of the High Court therefore not interfered with, in exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 145. B Thirty two persons of a village filed a petition before the SHO, Police Station, alleging that terrorists frequented the house of PW3. The appellants-police officials picked up PW3 and 'K' for interrogation and brought them to the Police Station on 09.02.1989 at 7.00 a.m. 'K' was released C but PW3 was detained and on the night of 09.02.1989, the appellao_~_ ~llegedly tortured her with patta, made her senseless andfiacfintercourse with her and released her only on 10.02.1989 when the Village Panchayat intervened. D On 13.02.1989, the complainant sent a petition to the Governor of the State making allegations against the appellants and requesting for enquiry. PW3 also filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate on E 25.07.1989. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged and summoned the appellants. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. At the trial, PW-3 reiterated her version in the complaint. The husband of PW-3 was examined as PW-1 and, a F neighbour was examined as PW-2. Both PW-1 and PW-2 stated before the trial court that PW-3 was not released on the evening of 09.02.1989 and was released only at 4.30 p.m. on 10.02; 1989 and when released, she was in a bad shape and told them about the torture and sexual G intercourse that was forced upon her by the appellants on the night of 09.02.1989. The appellants, on the other hand, took· the defence that PW-3 alongwith 'K' were actually released on 09.02.1989 at 6.00 p.m. and denied that they had any sexual intercourse with PW3. H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A The trial court rejected the defence of the appellants and held that the testimony of PW-3 was corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and convicted the appellants under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g) IPC and the appellant-'R' under Section 342 IPC B also. The judgment was affirmed by the High Court, and, therefore, the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. No evidence has been led on behalf of the C defence to show that PW-3 implicated the appellants under the influence of the terrorists. Reliance was placed upon Ext.DW-1/B dated 09.02.1989 said to __ have be~n signed by 32 vilfagers in: which it is stated that the ., . villagers
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.