The division judge bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Reena Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors held that the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be treated as gospel truth and the Court has to see that she is a witness of sterling quality. If the statement of the prosecutrix is held to be gospel truth and Courts are bound to hold someone guilty just because there is an allegation by the prosecutrix, it would be a travesty of justice and there would be no need to conduct the trial.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent called the appellant to come to Kosli and after taking permission, the appellant went to meet the respondent. They went to a hotel, where the respondent tried to book a room, however, the hotel staff refused to provide the room. Furthermore, the respondent took her on the bike where it was alleged that he pressed her breast, broke the string of her salwar, and inserted his fingers in her private parts. She told the respondent that she would not establish a physical relationship with him till the marriage but the respondent got offended and threatened not only to kill her but also not to marry her and then left the place. The appellant was getting threatened by the respondent due to which she got frightened and perturbed and upon asking by her mother she told her the entire incident. Thereafter, the complaint was made by the appellant, and on the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered under sections 376, 354, 354-B, 506, and 509 IPC.
The trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the commission of the offense and essential ingredients for proving the charge against the respondent are not proved. The trial Court held that it would be neither safe nor in the interest of justice to hold the respondent guilty as there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to link the respondent with the crime in question. With these findings, the trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to hold the respondent guilty. It was also submitted that the meeting of both of them at the hotel also stands proven. The judgment of the trial court needs to be set aside.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court observed that the conceded position emerging from the record is that family members of the appellant and respondent met on 31.05.2017 and 02.07.2017. As per grounds of appeal, the respondent along with his family members came to the house of the prosecutrix on 31.05.2017 and 02.07.2017 whereas the trial Court on the basis of cross-examination of the witness has found that the respondent did not meet the appellant on 31.05.2017 and 02.07.2017. The engagement ceremony was performed by family members of the respondent and he met the prosecutrix for the first time on 09.08.2017. As per the deposition of the prosecutrix, she did not call the respondent after 09.08.2017 and she got threatening calls on 12.08.2017 and 14.08.2017 whereas as per the call details record, it was the appellant who made calls from 09.08.2017 to 14.08.2017. The appellant made a number of calls from 01.08.2017 to 09.08.2017 and the respondent made calls from January 2017 to July 2017 on every 8th day of the month. The respondent was serving the Indian Army so there was the possibility that he was getting the opportunity to call on the 8th day of every month. The alleged accident took place on 09.08.2017 whereas the police were informed on 18.09.2017 i.e. after the expiry of more than one month. The father of the appellant never called the father of the respondent whereas he deposed that he called father of the respondent. The place where the alleged incident took place is a public place.
The high court held that the trial Court after noticing this fact has examined the veracity and truthfulness of the allegations of the prosecutrix. Though, it is a settled proposition of law that statement of the prosecutrix must be given pre-dominant consideration yet nobody in a civilized society can be implicated or held guilty just because there is a statement of the prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix cannot be treated as gospel truth and the Court has to see that she is a witness of sterling quality. If the statement of the prosecutrix is held to be gospel truth and Courts are bound to hold someone guilty just because there is the allegation by the prosecutrix, it would be a travesty of justice and there would be no need to conduct the trial.
On considering the question of delay in the FIR, the reliance was made upon the judgments titled Harbans Kaur v. the State of Haryana, and Baldev Singh v. the State of Punjab in which it was held that if the reasons explained for delay are cogent, delay can be ignored and prosecution story cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that there is a delay in registration of FIR. In the present case, the family of the appellant was not ignorant about criminal law & procedure whereas they are well acquainted with criminal procedure. The Appellant just to cover up the delay has alleged that she was threatened by the respondent and due to fear she did not disclose the alleged incident to her parents. The trial Court has rightly concluded that there is an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR and it appears that FIR was registered to spite the boy’s side at a later point in time just because the respondent refused to marry the appellant.
The hon’ble high court dismissed the appeal and supported the decision of the Trial court.
CASE NAME- Reena Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors
CITATION- CRM-A-1736-2019
CORUM- Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal
DATE-30.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://aldianews.com/sites/default/files/articles/5533216942_e4e47cd182_o_%281%29.jpg
