PARKASH CHAND versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 953 · Decided: 12-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
953
PARKASH CHAND
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 2393 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 12, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 and 506 – Rape – PW.2-
prosecutrix alleged that appellant caught hold of her on a common
path of villages and dragged her in the bushes – She raised hue
and cry but nobody was there at the place of occurrence – Appellant
committed rape on her – Consequent to which, prosecutrix got
pregnant – After 7 months of alleged commission of offence, FIR
was lodged – Trial Court convicted appellant u/ss. 376 and 506
IPC – Conviction affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held:
High Court proceeded on the basis of testimony of prosecutrix and
extra- judicial confession made before PW.4 and PW.5 – There were
different versions of PW.3 and PW.4 about the disclosure of the
incident to them by the prosecutrix – PW.4 evidence was based on
prosecutrix going to him and revealing him about the incident
whereas, PW.3 stated that after prosecutrix told her about the alleged
rape, PW.3 disclosed the factum of alleged rape to PW.4 – And,
prosecutrix stated that incident was disclosed by PW.3 to PW.4 –
This falsified the version of PW.4 – In such circumstances, not safe
to draw support from alleged extra-judicial confession made by
appellant to PW.4 – PW.5 too gave contradictory version of facts
regarding appellant coming to him and requesting compromise with
prosecutrix – Insofar as prosecutrix is concenred, if she had raised
hue and cry, it was very unlikely that the labourers who used the
common path did not hear it – Thus, unsafe to convict appellant on
testimony of the prosecutrix – Appellant entitled to the benefit of
doubt.
Evidence – Critical examination of evidence in an appeal by
special leave – Held: This Court has indulged in a closer look at
the evidence in these proceedings having regard to the need to do
so in view of the fact that the complaint itself is lodged after 7
months – If the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 953
953
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 3 S.C.R.
the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly
unreliable to act upon it even in an appeal by special leave, such a
critical examination may not be unwarranted.
Delay/ Laches – Offence of Rape – Delay of 7 months in
lodging the FIR – Held: There is admittedly a delay of 7 months in
lodging the FIR in the case of alleged rape – If the case is reported
immediately apart from the inherent strength of the case flowing
from genuineness attributable to such promptitude, the perceptible
advantage would be the medical examination to which the
prosecutrix can be subjected and the result of such examination in
a case where there is a resistance – It is the case of the prosecution
that she raised hue and cry and therefore apparently she would
have resisted – Possibly, a medical examination may have revealed
signs of any resistance or injuries.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There is admittedly a delay of 7 months in lodging
the FIR in the case of alleged rape.  If the case is reported
immediately apart from the inherent strength of the case flowing
from genuineness attributable to such promptitude, the
perceptible advantage would be the medical examination to which
the prosecutrix can be subjected and the result of such
examination in a case where there is a resistance.  It is the case
of the prosecution that she raised hue and cry and therefore
apparently she would have resisted.  Possibly, a medical
examination may have revealed signs of any resistance or injuries.
In this case the High Court has proceeded on the basis
of testimony of the prosecutrix and sought to fortify it by
the extra judicial confession made before PW4 and PW5.
[Para 14][964-B-D]
2. As far as PW 4 is concerned, his evidence is based on
the prosecutrix going to him on 05/07/2000 and revealing to him
about the incident whereas PW3, the maternal aunt of the
prosecutrix clearly says that after  prosecutrix told her about the
alleged rape and when PW4 came to visit the same village where
his in-laws also resides at that juncture on 07/07/2000, the factum
of the alleged rape was disclosed to him and he came to know on
the said basis.  This is a completely different version from what
PW4 has spoken.  If PW3 is to be believed, then knowledge about
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
the alleged incident was gained by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.