DAVINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 22-06-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
DAVINDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2015)
JUNE 22, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376, 452 and 506 – Acquittal under –
Allegation that appellant committed offence against the prosecutrix
(PW-6) u/s. 376 at her residence – The appellant-accused was
charged and convicted u/ss. 376, 452 and 506 by the Trial Court
and the same was confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
There was delay in filing complaint – There was no attempt to recover
the knife from the appellant as it is a specific case of the prosecution
that he committed the offence by threatening to harm the prosecutrix
– There was no reason as to non-examination of the sole eye witness
i.e. brother of the PW-6 – The High Court has recorded a wrong
factual finding that the offence u/s.376 was committed even at the
uncle’s residence of PW-6 which was not the case spoken by her –
The case of the prosecution does not conform to the degree of
probability – Evidence would also suggest that PW-4 was not willing
to give his daughter in marriage to appellant, FIR also speaks about
the same – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed –
Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 12 SCC
200; Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing
(2001) 6 SCC 145 – relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
12 of 2015.
 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2013 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLAP No. 1106 of 2003.
Ms. Rupali Yadav, Bharat Bhushan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ajay Pal, Mayank Dahiya, Advs. for the Respondent.
986
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 986 : 2023 INSC 585
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860,
(hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge
(Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003.
Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decisions, the present appeal is filed.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant came to the
residence of the prosecutrix and committed the offence punishable under
Section 376 IPC, brandishing a knife. The brother of the victim namely
Pargat Singh came home and upon seeing him, the appellant took to his
heels. On returning home, PW4, the father of the prosecutrix, filed a
complaint for quarrel alone as he felt that the dignity of his daughter,
PW6 was at stake.
3. After the aforesaid occurrence dated 15.03.2000, the appellant
along with the few other co-accused persons went to the residence of the
uncle of the prosecutrix wherein she was temporarily staying anticipating
trouble, and exerted threats. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged on
13.04.2000 in FIR No.60/2000 under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track
Court, Amritsar examined ten prosecution witnesses. It is to be noted
that the only eye witness, who is the brother of the prosecutrix Pargat
Singh has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. The Trial Court and the High Court rendered conviction against
appellant under all the Sections, with the major punishment of seven years
rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no
recovery of the weapon allegedly used. The non-examination of Pargat
Singh would make the case of prosecution doubtful. There was no external
injury found on the prosecutrix. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint
has not been taken note of. If PW4 was conscious about the reputation
of his daughter being tarnished, he would not have given the complaint
belatedly. At best, it could be a case of a relationship turning sour and
DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
not approved by the family. The High Court erred in recording that the
appellant took co-accused persons to the residence of the uncle of the
prosecutrix to commit the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC,
even when it was not the case of the prosecution. The fact that the
parties have compromised the matter in the year 2013 is also to be kept
in mind. The High Court bei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.