MOHAN LAL & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 11-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 5 S.C.R. 831 
MOHAN LAL & ANR 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No (s).878-879 of 2011 ETC.) 
. 
APRIL 11, 2013 
' 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860- s.376(2)(b, (g) and 366- Gang rape 
A 
B 
- Of student - By teachers - Convicted by courts below u/ c 
s.3762)(g) and 366 and sentenced to 10 years RI and fine -
Held: Accused rightly convicted - Since the accused were 
public servants and the prosecutrix being a student in their 
custody, provisions of s.376(2)(b) are also applicable - There 
being fiduciary relationship between the accused and the 
0 
prosecutrix, provisions of s.114-A of Evidence Act are 
attracted - Thus there is presumption against any consent by 
the prosecutrix and the accused have not rebutted that 
presumption - Considering the relationship between the 
accused and prosecutrix, life imprisonment should have been 
E 
proper punishment - But in the circumstances that State has 
not come in appeal and Special Leave Petition of another 
accused was dismissed by Supreme Court, the Court is not 
in a position to issue notice for enhancement of punishment 
- Evidence Act, 1872 - s.114-A. 
Raju and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 
SCC 133: 2008 (16) SCR 1078; Ranjit Hazarika vs. State of 
Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635 - relied on. 
F 
Avinash. Nagra vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Ors. 
G 
(1997) 2 sec 534: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 105; Vijay @ 
Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191: 2010 
(8) SCR 1150 - referred to. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.309(1) Proviso -
831 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 
A rape case - Speedy trial - A procedure which does not ensure 
a reasonably quick trial, cannot be regarded as 'reasonable', 
'fair' or just' and it will fall foul of Article 21 - It is duty of the 
court not to adjourn the proceedings for such a long period, 
giving an opportunity to the accused to persuade or force the 
B witnesses - In the instant case, the trial court went against the 
spirit of law by recording the statement of the prosecutrix on 
five different dates - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21. 
Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration) 
AIR 1984 SC 618: 1984 (2) SCR 438; Aki!@ Javed vs. State 
C of NCT of Delhi (2012) 1 SCALE 709; Mohd. Khalid vs. State 
of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 31; 
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1978 SC 
597: 1978 (2) SCR 621; Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. vs. 
R. S. Na yak and Anr. AIR 1992 SC 1701: 1991 (3) Suppl. 
D SCR 325; Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 2009 
SC 1822: 2009 (1) SCR 517; Shri Sudarshanacharaya vs. 
Shri Purushottamacharya and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 241 - relied 
on. 
E 
State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001) 4 SCC 
F 
G 
H 
667: 2001 (2) SCR 854; N. G. Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde 
(2001) 6 SCC 135: 2001 (3) SCR 442 - referred to. 
Witnesses: 
Protection of witnesses - It is duty of prosecution and 
Investigating Officer to ensure that witnesses are examined . 
in such a manner that their statement must be recorded at 
the earliest, and they should be assured full protection, so as 
to prevent them from being hostile. 
Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Statement 
of hostile witness can also be examined to the extent it 
supports the prosecution case. 
MOHAN LAL & ANR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
833 
Case Law Reference: 
A 
1984 (2) SCR 438 
relied on 
Para 13 
(2012) 1 SCALE 709,, 
relied on 
Para 13 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 31 
relied on 
Para 14 
B 
2001 (2) SCR 854 
referred to 
Para 14 
2001 (3) SCR 442 
referred to 
Para 14 
1978 (2) SCR 621 
relied on 
Para 15 
c 
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 
relied on 
Para 15 
2009 (1) SCR 517 
relied on 
Para 1,5 
c2012) 9 sec 241 
relied on 
Para 15 
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 105 
referred to 
Para 17-
D 
2010 (8) SCR 1150 
referred to 
Para 19 
2008 (16) SCR 1078 
relied on 
Para 20 
(1998) s sec 635 
relied on 
Para 20 
E 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 878-879 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2010 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
F 
Nos. 1009-SB & 1031-SB 2000. 
WITH 
Crl.A. No. 884 of 2011. 
G 
V.K. Jhanji, Manoj Swarup, Anup Kumar, Rutwik Panda, 
Jyoti Mendiratta, Debasis Misra for the Appellants. 
Srajita Mathur, Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. 
H 
\ 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.