THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus GURMIT SINGH ANR ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 16-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
GURMIT SINGH ANR ORS. 
JANUARY 16, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code 1860---Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376-Abduction, 
Wrongful confinement aiul rape of a minor girl-Acquittal by Trial Court 
disbelieving the prosecutrix and discarding medical evidence--Held- Prosecutrix 
reliable and truthful witness-corroboration by medical evidence and chemical 
examination report though no such corroboration is necessary to rely upon the 
testimony of the prosecutrix. 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973--Section 154-Delay in.filing FIR-Time 
spent to secure justice through village panchayats and consultations between 
D 
the.family members-Held, generally a complaint is lodged in a sexual offence 
after a cool thought since the incidence concerns the reputation ~f the victim 
and honour of her .family-Therefore delay is justified. 
E 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973--Sections 327 (2) and (3)--Sexual 
o.ffences--/n camera trial should be the rule and open court trial an exception. 
According to the prosecution, the Prosecutrix aged around 15 years, 
was going to her uncle's home after giving her matriculation examination 
and was abducted by the respondents. They took her to a tubewell kotha 
and made her drink liquor ignoring her protest, telling her that it was only 
F 
fruit juice. Thereafter all the three respondents had sexual intercourse 
with her without her consent and against her will. Next day, in the mo ruing 
the prosecutrix was dropped by the respondents at the same place from 
where she was abducted. The prosecutrix after giving her examination on 
that day returned to her house and told P. W. 7 (Mother) her traumatic 
G 
experience. P.W. 6 (Father) learnt about it through P.W. 7. A compromise 
was tried through the Sarpanch of his village and the Sarpanch of the 
village where the Respondents were living. When compromise talks failed, 
P.W. 6 and the prosecutrix filed an FIR. The prosecutrix was sent for 
medical examination. All the three respondents were arrested. 
H 
The trial court acquitted all the respondents disbelieving the evi-
532 
• 
' , 
STATE v. GURMIT SINGH 
533 
dence of prosecutrix on the ground that she was not a reliable witness and 
A 
was attempting to shield her own conduct by indulging in falsehood to 
implicate the respondents. The trial court was of the opinion that it was 
a false case and that the accused had been implicated on account of enmity. 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The prosecutrix has made a truthful statement and the 
prosecution has established the case against the respondents beyond every 
reasonable doubt. The trial court fell in error in acquitting them. The 
appreciation of evidence by the trial court is not only unreasonable but 
C 
perverse. [552-B) 
2. Even though no corroboration is necessary to rely upon the 
testimony of the prosecutrix, yet sufficient corroboration from the medical 
evidence and the chemical examination report is available on the record. 
Her statement has been fully supported by the evidence of her father 
D 
(p.w.6) and her mother (p.w.7). The unchallenged fact that it was the 
prosecutrix who had led the investigating officer to the Kotha of the 
tubewell where she had been raped, lent a built-in-assurance that the 
charge levelled by her was "genuine" rather than "fabricated" because 
it is no one's case that she knew the first respondent earlier or that she 
E 
had ever seen or visited the Kotha at his tubewell. [547-D-F) 
' 
3. Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences can be due to variety of 
> 
reasons particularly the recluctance of the prosecutrix or her family 
members to go to the police and complain about the incident which 
concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of the family. 
It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence 
is generally lodged. [543-A-B) 
F 
4. If the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation 
properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver of the 
car, that can not become a ground to discredit the testimony of the 
prosecutrix. The prosecntrix had no control over the investigating agency 
and the negligence of the investigating officer would not affect the 
credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix. [542-F-G) 
G 
5. There is evidence on record to establish that on the date of the 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
A 
occurre

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