[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 8 April, 2026
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M)
Reserved on: 16.03.2026.
Pronounced on:08.04.2026
Uploaded on:09.04.2026
JEETA @ BITTU ...Appellant
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Argued by: Ms. Manveen Peruman, Advocate
for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Akash Yadav, AAG Punjab.
*****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.
Judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated
23.03.2006 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur
have been assailed in the present appeal.
2. Vide impugned judgment and order, appellant was convicted
and sentenced as under:-
Under Rigorous imprisonment Fine In default of fine, further
Section rigorous imprisonment
342 IPC Rigorous imprisonment - -
for six months
366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment ₹2,000/- Rigorous imprisonment
for three years for six months
376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment ₹20,000/- Rigorous imprisonment
for six years for six months
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -2-
3. For better appreciation and clarity, the parties shall be referred
to as they were before the Court of first instance.
4. The facts, as narrated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are
that one 'XXXX' and her husband YYYY met the police party on
01.12.2002 at Bus Stand Sugar Mill. XXXX made statement that she was a
house wife and belonged to village Bhullar P.S. Sadar Batala. On
08.11.2002, at about 2.00 PM, when she was present at her house, one
Praveen wife of Jeeta @ Bittu came and asked her to accompany her for
answering the call of nature. When they came out of the village, they found
a tempo parked on the metalled road. Father-in-law of Praveen namely
Shangara Singh, his wife Beero and her husband Jeeta @ Bittu were sitting
in the tempo. They all forcibly dragged her into the tempo. Shangara Singh
and Beero escaped from the spot. Praveen and her husband Jeeta @ Bittu
took her to parental house of Praveen at village Santokh Rai. Praveen left
her parental home and Jeeta @ Bittu raped her without her consent. He kept
her in his in-laws house for 3-4 days and committed rape without her
consent. He also thrashed her. 'XXXX' further stated that thereafter, Praveen
and her husband Jeeta took her to Rania Dhariwal to the house of Pamma
Singh, where Jeeta @ Bittu and Pamma raped her without her consent. They
kept her at village Rania for two days. Then Praveen, her husband Jeeta @
Bittu and Pamma took her to village Bajwa colony, Halla Chhalla to the
house of Meeto, where she was kept for another two days. Then, she was
taken to the house of Durjan Singh, where she was kept for three days. Her
husband then reached village Sekhon with his cousin Hardev Singh and
brought her back. She narrated the entire occurrence to her husband and
Hardev Singh. On the statement, case was registered. Accused Praveen,
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -3-
Jeeta and Gurmeet Kaur @ Meeto were arrested. Pramjit Singh @ Pamma
was declared proclaimed offender on 14.06.2003. On completion of
investigation, final report was forwarded. Shangara Singh and Beero were
found innocent during the course of investigation.
5. Accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma was declared proclaimed
offender vide order dated 14.06.2003.
6. After supply of documents to the accused as envisaged by
Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of Sessions by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Batala, vide order dated 11.08.2003.
7. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, charge sheeted
accused Parveen Kumari, Jeeta @ Bittu and Gurmit Kaur under Sections
366/376/342 IPC on 01.11.2003. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial.
8. Accused Shangara Singh and Veero were summoned to face
trial by the trial Court vide order dated 03.01.2004. Charges were framed
against accused Parveen Kumari, Jeeta @ Bittu and Gurmit Kaur, Shangara
Singh and Beero under Sections 366/376/342 IPC vide order dated
23.04.2004.
9. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses during the course of trial.
PW-1 Satish Chander, draftsman proved scale site plan Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.
PW-1/B which he prepared after spot visit, at the instance of 'XXXX'. PW-2
Dr. Arvinder Singh, MO, Civil Hospital, Batala conducted Ossification test
of 'XXXX' and stated that her bone age was above 20 years. He proved the
skiagrams Ex. PW-2/A to PW-2/D and his report PW-2/E. PW-3 'XXXX'
wife of 'YYYY' deposed on the lines of her complaint Ex. PW3/A, which
she proved. PW-4, C. Narender Singh delivered special reports of the case to
senior officers. PW-5, Joginder Pal tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -4-
PW5/A. PW-6 Dr. Tejinder Kaur, MO, Civil Hospital, Batala medico legally
examined 'XXXX' wife of 'YYYY' on 02.12.2002 and proved her report
Ex. PW-6/A. PW-7 'YYYY' corroborated the version of PW-3 'XXXX' in
material particulars. He stated that while searching for his wife 'XXXX', he
found her in village Halla Chhalla and his wife narrated the whole story to
him in presence of his cousin Hardev Singh. When they were going towards
the village, they met Inspector Pyara Lal, who recorded statement of his
wife. PW-8 ASI Kamal Kishore arrested accused Jeeta @ Bittu on
27.12.2002. PW-9 Inspector Pyara Lal recorded statement of 'XXXX' wife
of 'YYYY' Ex. PA, proved his endorsement Ex. PW-9/A thereon as also the
ruqa PW-9/B. He stated about the various steps of investigation and proved
the rough site plans Ex. PW-9/C, Ex. PW-9/D and Ex. PW-9/E. He also
arrested the accused, recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the final
report after completing investigation. PW-10 Lakhvir Singh stated that
'YYYY' was his brother-in-law. Rajwant Kaur was his sister, who was
married with 'YYYY' in the year 1987-88. Out of the wedlock, a male child
was born. She fell ill and died in the hospital. They were four brothers and
sisters. Rajwant Kaur was his only sister and her name was not 'XXXX'.
Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
10. Statements of all accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence as false and claimed false
implication on account of enmity. They stated that Shangara Singh filed a
complaint under the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against 'YYYY', Beer Singh and
Balwinder Singh Sarpanch, which was pending in the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Beero was cited as a witness in that
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -5-
complaint. 'YYYY' in connivance with Balwinder Singh Sarpanch hired a
lady named Raj for some consideration and falsely implicated them at the
instance of the Halqa MLA Mr. Shekhri.
11. In defence evidence, accused examined Jagmohan Rattan Lal,
Record Keeper Sessions Court as DW-1, who placed on record Ex. D1,
certified copy of grounds of revision in CR No. 14 titled YYYY Vs.
Davinder Kaur decided on 28.02.2001 and Ex.D2 judgment dated
28.02.2001. DW-2 Tarsem Raj, Civil Ahalmad of the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur brought summoned file pertaining to
complaint Shingara Singh Vs. YYYY and Another bearing No. 2 of
03.09.2002. He stated that accused No. 1 to 3 were facing trial. He brought
on record certified copy of the complaint (Ex.D-3). DW-3 Harpreet Singh,
MPHW brought the summoned record pertaining to the death of XXXX w/o
YYYY and proved the death certificate Ex. P-4, whereon he identified the
signatures of Jaspal Singh, Superintendent and the then Registrar, Births and
Deaths, Dr. Subhash. DW-4 Yashpal, Election Kanungo brought summoned
record, voter list of the year 1993 Ex. DW-4/A and voter list of the year
1995, Ex. DW-4/B. DW-5 Kuldeep Singh, Computer-cum-Record Keeper,
office of Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur proved certificate Ex.DW-5/A issued by
the office of Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur and identified the signatures of Dr.
Parvez Taneja, Additional District Registrar, Births and Deaths, Gurdaspur.
12. Following documents were also brought on record.
Photocopy of voter list for the year 1993 Vidha Sabha Halqa 2,
Batala, Patwar Circle Bhullar, Photocopy of voter list for the year 1995,
Vidha Sabha Halqa 2, Batala, Patwar Circle Bhullar, photocopy of voter list
for the year 1998, village Bhullar and original certified copy of birth
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -6-
certificate of Sh. Balwinder Singh s/o Sh. YYYY s/o Avtar Singh as Mark
D-1, Mark D-2, Mark D-3 and Mark D-4 respectvely.
13. Learned trial Court heard respective submissions, considered
the evidence on record and found the charge under Section 342, 366, 376
IPC duly proved against accused Jeeta.
14. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that oral evidence of
the complainant was corroborated by medical evidence and that accused
Jeeta committed rape on complainant 'XXXX' without her consent; that he
also kidnapped her with intention to compel her to have illicit sexual
intercourse and for this purpose wrongfully confined her in different places.
15. Accused Praveen Kumari, Gurmit Kaur, Shangara Singh and
Beero were, however, acquitted extending benefit of doubt. Accused Jeeta
was convicted and sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of the
judgment.
16. Aggrieved with the conviction, accused Jeeta has come up in
appeal.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was a
witness, set up by YYYY to settle score with Shangara Singh, father of
accused Jeeta, who filed a case against him under Section 3 of the Schedules
Cast and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 ( For short
SC/ST Act). The FIR lodged against the accused was counter blast of
complaint Ex.D3. Accused had been falsely implicated due to enmity, to take
revenge and to exert pressure. As per version of the prosecutrix, the incident
occurred on 08.11.2022 when she was forcefully taken to the house of
Parveen, where Jeeta @ Bittu raped her and thrashed her. Thereafter, she
was taken to Rania Dhariwal and then to Halla Chhalla. Prosecutrix was an
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -7-
adult, mature woman, in senses through out the episode travelling through
market and public places but never raised any hue and cry nor attempted to
escape. The story of rape by multiple persons and gang rape was belied by
her medicolegal report which did not show any external injuries or marks of
violence. No spermatozoa was detected on the vaginal swabs nor there was
any evidence of recent sexual assault. The tempo-traveller in which
prosecutrix was transported was never recovered. She admitted that she was
not blind folded and her claim that she never met any other person was
unbelievable. As per her own admission, the door of the house of Gurmit
Kaur where she was kept were always open, yet she did not attempt to run
away. Her unnatural conduct falsified her version.
18. Learned counsel went on to submit that identity of the
prosecutrix as XXXX was not proved on record. In fact, she was not XXXX
but one RRRR impersonating XXXX who died in the year 1990 as per
death certificate Ex.D-4. The case was malicious out come of prior criminal
litigation between the family of the accused and YYYY. The story of
repeated rape was highly suspicious, doubtful and improbable particularly
when identity of the prosecutrix was questionable.
19. It was urged that after death of XXXX in 1990, husband of the
complainant YYYY remarried Davinder Kaur whose name was added in the
Voter List Ex.DW4/B. Referring to the statement of Lakhbir Singh, brother
of the deceased-wife, it was pointed out that he too conceded that YYYY
had married again after death of his sister and in the voter list, the name of
his sister was mentioned as XXXX. It was argued that no reliance could be
placed on testimony of prosecutrix who deposed falsely regarding her own
identity. It was thus prayed that the accused be acquitted of the charges.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -8-
20. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submitted that though
solitary statement of the prosecutrix was sufficient to prove the charges, her
oral version was also corroborated by medical evidence. Prosecutrix did not
have any direct enmity with accused Jeeta. He was not a party in the
criminal complaint filed by Shangara Singh against YYYY and others.
Regarding identity of the prosecutrix, learned State counsel submitted that
there was neither any documentary nor any oral evidence to prove that
prosecutrix was not XXXX but RRRR. The accused only tried to confuse the
matter, taking advantage of name of XXXX appearing in the voter list.
Supporting the judgment of learned Trial Court, it was prayed that the appeal
be dismissed.
21. No appeal has been filed against acquittal of accused Parveen
Kumari, Gurmit Kaur, Shangara Singh and Beero. This Court, therefore, is
only required to determine whether conviction of accused Jeeta @ Bittu
under Sections 342, 366, 376 IPC is well founded.
22. Sexual violence is a dehumanizing act which degrades and
humiliates the victim. Cases relating to crime against women are, therefore
dealt with utmost sensitivity. The courts shoulder a great responsibility while
trying accused on charges of rape, one of the most heinous and reprehensible
of all crimes that can be committed on a women. It is for this reason that the
courts lean heavily in favour of victims of sexual assaults. In a plethora of
judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that ordinarily,
evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed
and such statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness.
If evidence of the prosecutrix is found reliable and creditworthy, no
corroboration is necessary.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -9-
23. Uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied upon
to record finding of guilt. In all cases of sexual violence, the Courts cannot
insist on corroboration given the nature of the offence which makes it nigh
impossible to get corroborating evidence. Even absence of injuries on the
private organs cannot, by itself, falsify the charge of rape though bruises,
abrasions, scratches on a victim would suggest struggle and support the
allegations of sexual assault.
24. Though, the above observations carry greatest weight, they
cannot be mechanically applied to every case of sexual assault which comes
before the court. The courts while dealing with cases of sexual assault, also
must bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. Rape indeed
causes great humiliation and distress to the victim, at the same time, a false
allegation of rape can cause equal distress, psychological trauma, societal
stigma and humiliation to the accused as well, besides the agony of
incarceration. Instances are replete where false allegations of rape have been
levelled to extort money, to wreak vengeance, for self preservation or for
any other extraneous reasons. In appropriate cases, the accused should also
be protected against false implication. Therefore, whether or not there was
rape would ultimately depend on facts and circumstances of each case.
25. The broad principle that prosecution is required to prove its
case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape
and there can be no presumption that prosecutrix would always tell the story
truthfully (vide Abbas Ahmad Choudhary vs. State of Assam, (2010) 12
SCC 115). Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the
testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of
prudence (refer to The State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh and others,
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -10-
(1996) 2 SCC 384, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Asha Ram, AIR 2006
SC 381 and Rajinder @ Raju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 16
SCC 69. No doubt, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient
to sustain conviction of an accused of rape but such testimony should be
unflinching, consistent, infallible and should inspire confidence of the court.
Evidence of the prosecutrix has to be examined as that of an injured witness
but it is not the law that her statement should, without exception, be taken as
a gospel truth. The veracity of the story projected by the prosecution qua
allegations of rape has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of each
individual case.
26. The fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of
criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the accused. Till
the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear,
cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or
punishing an accused does not arise, carried away by heinous nature of the
crime or gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed.
Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable it may be, is no effective
substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of
commission of a crime. Graver the charge is, greater should be the standard
of proof required. The Courts dealing with criminal cases should remember
that there is long mental distance between 'may be true' or 'must be true'
and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction
between 'conjectures' and 'sure conclusions' to be arrived at on the touch
stone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and
comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and
credibility of the evidence brought on record. These were the observations
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -11-
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ashish Batham Versus State of M.P. 2002
AIR Supreme Court 3206.
27. Facts of the case are to be marshalled in the light of above
principles.
28. In the case in hand, defence plea from the very beginning is that
identity of the prosecutrix had been falsely projected; that she was not
XXXX wife of YYYY, who died long ago but was one RRRR, who has been
set up only to take revenge and exert pressure on the family of accused, who
filed a criminal case against YYYY.
29. The first and foremost issue to be determined is whether
prosecution has successfully proved identity of the prosecutrix, who claims
to be XXXX wife of YYYY.
30. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of judgment in Criminal Revision
No.14 of 1999 titled YYYY Versus Devinder Kaur and another which
reveals that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Davinder Kaur
on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter against YYYY (PW3)
claiming maintenance allowance. In that petition, she averred that she was
married to YYYY in the year 1993. YYYY contested the petition admitting
the relationship between the parties. PW-3 YYYY when cross-examined
regarding his wife, stated that Davinder Kaur died due to illness but her
illness could not be diagnosed. He admitted that he married Davinder Kaur 9
years ago and had a daughter Sulakhani from her. He then took a complete
U-turn to state that Davinder Kaur was still alive but Jagwant Kaur had died
12 years ago. He denied that his wife XXXX died in the year 1990, as also
the suggestion that the prosecutrix in the case was actually RRRR daughter
of Bila r/o Ram Duwali Musalmana Di of District Amritsar. Still further in
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -12-
cross-examination, he stated that his wife Davinder Kaur was still living and
no divorce had taken place.
31. From the disclosure made by YYYY regarding his wife
Davinder Kaur being alive and from Ex.D-2, copy of the judgment in
Criminal Revision No.14 of 1999, it transpires that first wife of YYYY died
and his second wife was Davinder Kaur, whose marriage was valid and
subsisting at the time when the criminal case was lodged in the year 2002
and when YYYY was examined during the trial.
32. To create more confusion and in an attempt to mislead the court,
an application for additional evidence was moved by the prosecution on
25.11.2004, which was allowed by the Court on 01.12.2004. In additional
evidence, prosecution examined Lakhbir Singh son of Santokh Singh, who
was never originally cited as a witness in the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. He stated that complainant YYYY son of Avtar Singh was his
brother-in-law and Rajwant Kaur, was his sister, who was married with
YYYY in the 1987-1988. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born and his
sister died in the hospital. He added that Rajwant Kaur was his sister and her
name was not XXXX. Incisive cross-examination by learned defence
counsel, however, shattered his version in examination-in-chief. Though, he
initially feigned ignorance about marriage of YYYY with Davinder Kaur, he
admitted that Sulakhani was born out of the wedlock of Davinder Kaur and
YYYY. He also stated that his brother-in-law YYYY had married twice, the
first marriage was performed at village Manepur and his sister died on
25.05.1990 at Amritsar Hospital. Towards the end, he conceded that in the
voter list, name of his sister was appearing as XXXX.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -13-
33. Accused examined Harpreet Singh, MPHW as DW-3, who
brought the summoned record pertaining to death of XXXX wife of YYYY
and proved Ex.D4, the death certificate issued by Municipal Corporation
Amritsar, which establishes beyond doubt that XXXX wife of YYYY r/o
Village Bhullar, Amritsar, died on 25.05.1990, at SGTBH, Amrtisar. Death
certificate Ex.D4 corroborates version of Lakhbir Singh that his sister died
on 25.05.1990 at Amritsar.
34. Prosecutrix who claimed to be XXXX stated in cross
examination that she was married with YYYY 5 years ago and had two
children from him, daughter Kirandeep and a son Navjot. She did not deny
that YYYY was married to Davinder Kaur of village Bhullar of District
Amritsar. She feigned ignorance of the two daughters from his marriage with
Davinder Kaur, one of whom had died and the other was 10 years old. She
evaded all questions regarding Davinder Kaur. She stated that she was not
aware that Davinder Kaur and her daughter had filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed. She stated that she was not aware
that wife of YYYY namely XXXX died on 12.10.1987. She stated that she
had no knowledge that Shingara Singh had filed a complaint under Section 3
of the SC/ST against YYYY son of Avtar Singh, Dhir Singh and Balwinder
Singh in which Veero and Sukho were witnesses.
35. From cross-examination of the prosecutrix as well, it becomes
crystal clear that she is not XXXX and her entire version regarding her
marriage with YYYY 5 years ago and two children from him, is false.
36. On a cumulative assessment of all material facts and
circumstances proved on record, the Court is in no doubt that first wife of
YYYY was indeed XXXX, who died in Amritsar Hospital on 25.05.1990.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -14-
His second wife is Davinder Kaur daughter of Swaran Singh from whom he
has a daughter Sulakhni. Not only the prosecutrix but also YYYY and his
brother-in-law Lakhbir Singh are speaking blatant lies to mislead the Court
regarding the identity of the prosecutrix.
37. Davinder Kaur being the second wife of YYYY and his first
wife being dead, identity of prosecutrix as XXXX (who as per Ex.D4 died in
1990) is not proved.
38. Learned Trial Court has committed grave error in holding that
accused failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that
complainant was RRRR and not XXXX wife of YYYY. The observation is
against the basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence that the onus to prove its
case is always on the prosecution which is required to prove its version
beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and there is no corresponding onus on
the accused to prove that the case is false. It was entirely for the prosecution
to establish by cogent evidence that prosecutrix was indeed XXXX wife of
YYYY which it miserably failed to prove. On the other hand, the accused
led credible documentary evidence to prove that XXXX who was the first
wife of YYYY died in the year 1990. Ex.D-4 death certificate conclusively
proves that XXXX wife of YYYY r/o Amritsar, died on 25.05.1990 which
fact was erroneously ignored by the Trial Court.
39. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of complaint under Section 3 of the
SC/ST Act filed by Shangara Singh against YYYY, Dhir Singh and
Balwinder Singh. Bir Kaur wife of Shangara Singh has been cited as a
witness. Defence version that the false case was foisted on the accused and
his parents only to exert pressure on Shangara Singh, or as a measure of
revenge is probablized in the light of the circumstance that an impostor was
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -15-
set up as XXXX to implicate the entire family of Shangara Singh, his wife,
son, in a case of rape. It is strange that learned Trial Court acquitted accused
Parveen Kumari disbelieving prosecution evidence against her on the ground
that criminal litigation was pending between her father-in-law and husband
of the complainant and the case was manipulated to implicate her falsely
and at the same time, indicted accused Jeeta @ Bittu of the charges.
40. Sterling witness on whose statement conviction can be ordered,
should be of high quality and calibre whose version before the Court
unflinching, infallible and unassailable. Statement of the prosecutrix who
lied about a fundamental aspect of her personality i.e. her identity is not
worth reliance to indict the accused of the charge as serious as one of gang
rape. Even otherwise, her version is quite vague, improbable and marred by
inconsistencies. Her statement that wife of Jeeta i.e. Parveen (since
acquitted) and Jeeta took her to the parental house of Parveen at village
Santokh Rai, from where Parveen left and Jeeta committed rape against her
consent for 3-4 days, does not appear probable. Her further claim that
Parveen and Jeeta took her to the village Rania Dhariwal to the house of
Pamma where she was gang raped by Jeeta and Pamma and then she was
then taken to Halla Chhalla, to be kept in the house of Meeto for two days,
thereafter to the house of Surjan at village Sekha, brother of Meeto, where
she was kept for 3 days is equally unbelievable. It cannot be believed that a
mature grown up lady, who was travelling to various places for 10-12 days,
neither raised any alarm nor made any effort to escape despite ample
opportunities. The MLR Ex.PW6/B which proves absence of external
injuries and report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PX that no spermatozoa was
seen on the vaginal swab also supports the defence plea of false implication.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -16-
41. Statement of prosecutrix, who has lied about her identity cannot
be accepted at its face value, when the Court is satisfied that she is a witness
set up by YYYY and is deposing under an assumed name, fake address, fake
particulars.
42. Fraud and justice never dwell together is a pristine maxim
which has never lost its temper. Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings.
The prosecutrix, who shamelessly assumed identity of dead wife of YYYY,
cannot be believed, when she says that she was continuously raped and gang
raped by accused Jeeta. Conduct of the proecsutrix, tainted with fraud and
deception, strikes at the credibility of her version and gives a serious blow to
the prosecution case. It is manifest on record that the prosecutrix is not
hesitant at all in taking shelter of falsehood and misrepresentation to misuse
court proceedings. She has shamelessly resorted to unethical means for her
immoral goals. Her attempt to pollute the stream of justice with tainted
hands cannot be furthered by the Court. There is thus no question of placing
reliance on her deposition to uphold the conviction of the accused. Her story
regarding sexual exploitation by accused cannot be believed when she is
proved to have changed her name, address and made false deposition before
the Court.
43. Evidence of the prosecutrix fails to pass the test of judicial
scrutiny and cannot be relied upon. Guilt under Sections 366, 376, 341 IPC,
thus, cannot be brought home to the accused.
44. The appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and order on
quantum of sentence dated 23.03.2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gurdaspur, are set aside.
CRA-S-757-SB-2006 (O&M) -17-
45. Appellant-accused Jeeta @ Bittu is accordingly acquitted of the
charges framed under Sections 366, 376, 342 IPC. He is on bail. His bail and
surety bond stand discharged.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE
08.04.2026
Ajay Goswami/Reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
