The Punjab and Haryana high court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Surjit Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal said 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 is held to be gospel truth and the 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 a trial. (Reena Devi v. State of Haryana)
Facts of the case
The appellant was engaged to an Indian Army officer. The victim claims that she met her fiancé on August 9, 2017, with approval from her family. They rode bikes together to Kosli Road, which is close to a school, when the accused conducted obscene activities with her.
The victim claims that when the respondent refused to marry her and threatened to kill her, the victim refused to have a physical relationship with the accused until they were married.
The appellant claimed that she got threats from the respondent’s mobile phone on August 12 and August 14, 2017, and that a few days later she told her family about the entire incident.
The trial court outlined various issues for its consideration and determined that finding the respondent guilty would neither be prudent nor in the interests of justice because there isn’t any solid or convincing evidence linking them to the alleged offence. The trial court cleared the accused of all counts as a result.
According to the appellant, the event happened on August 9, 2017, however the FIR was filed on September 18, 2017, according to the trial court. As a result, the registration of the FIR was delayed, and the appellant’s explanations for the delay are not convincing.
Court's observations and Judgment
The Court said “the statement of 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 prosecutrix is held to be gospel truth and Courts are bound to hold someone guilty just because there is allegation by prosecutrix, it would be travesty of justice and there would be no need to conduct trial. The statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 or police authorities under Section 161 of CrPC would be sufficient to put a person behind the bars and hold him guilty."
The Court cited Dhanapal v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 401 wherein the Court held that if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must be granted to the accused. It has been further held that if two views are possible, the order of acquittal should not be set aside by the High Court because there is double presumption of innocence.
The bench dismissing the appeal remarked, "The HC observed that the place of the alleged incident is a public place and next to a hospital, police station and a busy road. It is hard to believe that a person working for the Army would commit an alleged act in apublic place and with his fiancée on the day of the engagement after they met for the first time. Dismissing the woman’s appeal, the bench observed that the findings recorded by the trial court were well reasoned and there was no substance in the allegations of the prosecutrix."
Read Judgment @LAtestlaws.com
Picture Source :
