Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant (‘accused’) against the judgment dated 05-08-2022, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ., after perusal of relevant portion of the cross- examination of the prosecution, observed that it was openly suggestive, that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused to the crime site, especially when she had stated that she did not suffer any internal or external injury marks on any part of her body during the course of her being allegedly subjected to physical relations with the accused. Moreover, when the motorcycle was driven by the accused in the crowded places and the victim was coerced to occupy the pillion seat of the motorcycle, the victim ought to have invited the attention of passer-by by raising shrieks and cries.
Thus, the Court concluded that the victim had voluntarily joined the company of the accused, and since there was no injury marks on the victim, the incident, if any, which occurred amongst the victim and the accused, was entirely consensual.
Background
In the present case, the victim recorded her statement that she was the first-year student of B.Com., and the accused used to visit her village often so, she started meeting him. She used to meet him, on her way to college. The accused said to her that after consulting his parents, he would marry her.
On 10-01-2017, when the victim was on her way to college, she met the accused, who asked her that he would marry her on that day, as he had already consulted his parents. The accused asked her that if she loves him, she had to go with him, on that day and they would perform marriage. Thereafter, she went with him, on his allurement. The accused took the victim to his house and at that time, there was no one at home. The victim took her in a room, bolted it from inside and forced her to make physical relations with him but she told her that before marriage, she would not do so. Despite her resistance, he forcibly made physical relation with her. She started weeping, at that time. Then, he dropped her outside her village, on his bicycle.
The victim further alleged that the accused threatened him by saying that if she disclosed anything about the incident, he would kill her along with her family. Thus, under stress, she could not tell her parents about the incident. However, the victim realised that if the accused could do wrong with her, then he could also do wrong with others too, so she disclosed the incident to her mother and father. The victim’s parents asked her to inform the police regarding the incident. As such, her father informed the police about this and her statement was recorded by the police, in her home.
Based on the victim’s statement, a case was registered against the accused under Sections , , , of the and Sections , and of . Further, the Trial Court, after considering the material evidence on record convicted the accused under the framed charges. Hence, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after perusal of relevant portion of the cross- examination of the prosecution, observed that it was openly suggestive, that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused to the crime site, especially when she had stated that she did not suffer any internal or external injury marks on any part of her body during the course of her being allegedly subjected to physical relations with the accused. Moreover, when the motorcycle was driven by the accused in the crowded places and the victim was coerced to occupy the pillion seat of the motorcycle, the victim ought to have invited the attention of passer-by by raising shrieks and cries.
Thus, the Court concluded that the victim had voluntarily joined the company of the accused, and since there was no injury marks on the victim, the incident, if any, which occurred amongst the victim and the accused, was entirely consensual. The Court further observed that the victim in her cross-examination had candidly spoken, that there was no talk between her and the accused regarding marriage proposal. Therefore, the sexual intercourse, if any, which occurred between them, was not a sequel of any allurement of marriage.
Regarding medical evidence, the Court stated that the incrimination was undrawable against the accused on the ground that the victim had stated that she had urinated after commission of the alleged sexual intercourse. Further, the doctor had opined that the victim was used to sexual intercourse and the possibility of detection of lice spermatozoa reduced from 12 to 36 hours.
Thus, the Court allowed that the present appeal and accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned judgment. The Court acquitted the accused of all the charges framed against him. The Court directed that the fine amount, if any, deposited by him, should be refunded to him and the personal, and, surety bonds of the accused should stand cancelled, and discharged. The Court stated that the case should be properly dealt with, in accordance with law, but after the expiry of the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal and if the accused was in custody and not required in any other case, should be forthwith set at liberty.
[X v. State of Punjab, CRA-D-726 of 2022, decided on 28-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Rajiv Joshi, Advocate and Viren Sibal, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel); Harshit Singla, Advocate and Nikhil Chopra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Maninder Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Corresponding Section of (‘BNS’)
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Section of
Corresponding Sections , of
The post appeared first on .