LexSATPAL SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 9 S.C.R. 50 SATPAL SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2008) JULY 28, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.376: c Rape - Conviction - Challenged on the ground of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR - Held: Challenge not tenable since the delay was satisfactorily explained - The delay occurred because of the intervention of the village Panchayat which tried to bring about a compromise between 0 the parties - The complainant moved the investigative machinery only after the Panchayat disagreed to impose fine and punishment as suggested by him on the accused. Rape - Conviction - Challenged on the ground that prosecutrix and the accused were studying in the same school E and knew each other and it was a case of consent for sexual intercourse - Held: Challenge not tenable since the prosecution has successfully established that it was not a consent case - There was resistance by the prosecutrix and thus, it cannot, even by any stretch of imagination, be held F that she had voluntarily participated in the sexual act - There had been no enmity between the two families, and, therefore, there could be no reason for the prosecutrix and her family to enrope the accused falsely in a case where the honour of the family itself remains on stake and the prosecutrix has to G suffer mental agony throughout her life - Crime against Women. FIR - Lodged belatedly - Effect of the delay, in cases H 50 SATPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 51 involving sexual offences and in cases involving other A offences - Explained. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.35 - Admissibility of a document - Not same as its probative value - Held: Entry made in the official record by an official or person authorised in B performance of an official duty is admissible u/s. 35 but the authenticity of the entry would depend on whose instruction! information such entry stood recorded and what was his source of information. Words and Phrases - "consent" - Meaning of - In the C context of s.375 rlw s.90 /PC. According to the prosecution, the appellant raped PW15, the minor daughter of PW11, when she had gone to the fields for collecting cattle folder. Pursuant to the 0 alleged incident, the Village Panchayat intervened to bring about a compromise between the parties and ultimately imposed a fine of Rs.1100/- on the appellant. But PW11 was dissatisfied with the diktat of the Panchayat, and at his instance, an FIR was lodged E against the appellant under Sections 376, 201 and 217 IPC, about 4 months after the date of the incident. Subsequently, the trial court convicted the appellant under s.376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years F rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, however, reduced his sentence to 5 years. The appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds (1) that there was inordinate delay in lodging the G FIR and the prosecution could not furnish any explanation for the same; (2) that PW15 was major, and not minor as recorded by the Courts below, and 3) that PW15 and the appellant were studying in the same H 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A school and knew each other and it was a case of consent for sexual intercourse. The appellant contended that he had been falsely enroped in the crime just to extract certain amount of money from him. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the C introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creep in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, the FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution D must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same for the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. [Para 14] [62-E-G] E 1.2. However, no straight jacket formula can be laid down in this regard. In case of sexual offences, the criteria may be different altogether. The delay in lodging the FIR in sexual offences has to be considered with a different yardstick. As hono
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.