Sxxx v. Ashwin @ Asho and Ors

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

¶1The present appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment of acquittal dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court, PCOSO, Jind in the case stemming from FIR No. 70 dated 08.06.2021 registered under Sections 323, 342, 354-B, 363, 366A, 376, 506, 511 IPC and Sections 4/18 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'POCSO Act') at Women Police Station, Jind.

¶2Briefly,   the   facts   are   that   on   the   intervening   night   of 07/08.06.2021, the appellant received a call  from respondent No.1 who threatened to kill her and compelled her to meet in the night. After her family went to sleep, the appellant went to meet respondent No.1-accused. Thereafter, all the three accused-respondents No.1 to 3 gagged her mouth and took her away.   The   appellant   was   beaten   and   raped,   following   which   she   fell unconscious. When her family woke up and could not find the appellant, they arrived at the house of the accused. On seeing them, the father of the accused fled away. The father of the appellant found her restrained in the outer room of the premises of the house of the accused.

¶3Subsequently, charges were framed against respondent No.1 on

04.10.2021. Respondents No.2 and 3 were summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and amended charge sheet was framed against all the three accused on 07.03.2022. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted all the respondents-accused vide impugned judgment dated

10.03.2023.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellant  inter alia  contends that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in acquitting the respondents-accused as the appellant-victim and her father have been sterling witnesses. He submits that undue weightage has been given to minor discrepancies between the complaint and the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the dated of birth of the appellant is 14.09.2006 while the alleged incident occurred on the intervening night of 07/08.06.2021. As such, the appellant was a minor, 14 years and 9 months of age, at the time of the said incident. In fact, the appellant and her family approached the police on the same night but were asked to come in the morning of 08.06.2021.

¶5He further submits that blood stained trousers and t-shirt of the appellant were recovered vide recovery memo Ex. P-6. The appellant was medico-legally examined by PW14-Dr. Mansi on 08.06.2021 and the MLR reflects abrasions and swollen upper lip. It was opined that the injuries were caused within the last 24 hours, by a blunt weapon. Further, in spite of having sufficient power, the learned trial Court erred in not summoning the uncle (tau) of the appellant as a witness, who was stated to be an eye witness. Interestingly, the uncle (maama) of respondent No.2 was intentionally cited as a witness

(PW5), who subsequently turned hostile. PW5-Rajnish was previously known to the police and all efforts were made to safeguard him from prosecution. Further still, the respondents-accused were present outside the house of the appellant which makes it clear that it was a premeditated plan, as such the mobile location of the respondents-accused cannot be relied on, since the same can be easily manipulated to cover up their involvement. Finally, the learned trial Court has failed to perform its statutory duty and act as a guardian of the appellant   as   the   allegations   of   rape   were   dismissed   stating   the   only corroboration for the same is the statement of the appellant herself.

¶6Learned counsel for the respondents-accused contends that the respondents-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case owing to familial rivalry. The appellant had refused to get herself internally examined by a medical professional and stated that she had not been raped. Moreover, mobile location of the respondents-accused was received and it was found that at the time  of the alleged incident, respondent No.2 was in Shastri Colony, Sonipat, while respondent No.3  was 2 km away in village Siwanmall. As such, the learned trial Court has rendered a judgment of acquittal by correctly appreciating  the   evidence  on  record   and  the   same  does  not  merit  any interference by this Court.

¶7Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that it was duly concluded that the appellant was a child in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act as her birth certificate (Ex. P-12), reflecting her date of birth as

14.09.2006, was proved on record as Ex. P-12.

¶8The appellant, in her statement dated 08.06.2021 (Ex. P-15) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has deposed that the respondents-accused attempted to rape her but could not succeed. She further stated that the respondents-accused put her in an almirah and put clothes upon her, which does not find any mention in the complaint(Ex. P-3) moved by her. However, when the appellant appeared as PW1, she testified that she was sexually assaulted and that she was taken out of the almirah by her uncle (tau). The deposition of the appellant as PW1 and her father as PW2 makes it evident that it was the uncle of the appellant who found the appellant, which makes him an eyewitness of the   occurrence.   However,   despite   being   so,   he   was   not   joined   in   the investigation   or   cited   as   a   witness   for   the   reasons   best   known  to   the prosecution.

¶9Furthermore, it is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.1 called the appellant from different mobile numbers. She has stated that she received a call at 5:30 PM from respondent No.1 wherein he threatened her and asked her to meet him. PW13-Sandeep Sharma, Nodal Officer has testified that there are no call records of the mobile number belonging to respondent No.1 as alleged by the appellant. Moreover, the mobile tower location of respondent No. 2 for 07.06.2021 and 08.06.2021 shows that he was in Shastri Colony, Sonipat, where as respondent No.3 was in village Siwanamall. PW5-Rajnesh, uncle of respondent No.2, had deposed that respondent No.2 came to visit him in Sonipat on 23.05.2021 and has been staying there ever since. The same is also corroborated by the footage of the CCTV camera installed in his neighbour Jaipal's house.

¶10The Investigating Officer, while appearing as PW15, admitted that the respective houses of the appellant as well as the accused were located in a thickly populated area, however, she did not join any independent witnesses in the investigation. She also admits that during the investigation, respondents No.2 and 3 were exonerated. Finally, PW14- Dr. Mansi, Medical Officer has CRA-AS-384-2023 -&- deposed t!at t!e appellant ref sed to .et !erself internall) exa+ined and cate.oricall) stated t!at s!e "as not raped. S!e also stated t!at t!e appellant !ad not na+ed respondents 5o.2 and 3 d rin. t!e +edico-le.al exa+ination. ,!e appellant "as referred to %C4$S& Ro!ta( and a per sal of t!e record dated

08.06.2021 :Bx. D1= indicates t!at no p!)sical force "as  sed  pon !er person. ,!e parents of t!e appellant also ref sed to .et an D-ra) exa+ination cond cted of t!e appellant& on t!eir o"n responsi-ilit).

¶11A t"o 1 d.e -enc! of t!e Aon<-le S pre+e Co rt in  Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana 2011(3) R.C.R(Criminal) 53 & spea(in. t!ro .! 1 stice Deepa( Ver+a& +ade t!e follo"in. o-ser'ations: "31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the Appellant guilty of the said offences. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (Criminal Procedure Code), FIR and deposition in Court."

¶122 rt!er& a t"o 1 d.e -enc! of t!e Aon<-le S pre+e Co rt in Rai San!ee! " #ee$u vs. State of %C& of #elhi (2012) ' SCC 21& spea(in. t!ro .! 1 stice 2a((ir $o!a++ed 4-ra!i+ *alif lla& opined as follo"s: "15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross2examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any CRA-AS-384-2023 -'- doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co2relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." A t"o 1 d.e -enc! of t!e Aon<-le S pre+e Co rt in &amee(u!!in " &ammu vs. State of (%C&) of #elhi (2012) 15 SCC 5)) !as !eld as follo"s: "7. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.

¶13,!e po"er of t!e Appellate Co rt to  nsettle t!e order of acti ittal on t!e -asis of re-appreciation of t!e e'idence is s -/ect to t!e settled la" t!at "!ere t"o 'ie"s are possi-le and o t of t!e t"o& one points to"ards t!e innocence of t!e acc sed& t!e 'ie" "!ic! fa'o rs t!e acc sed s!o ld pre'ail o'er t!e ot!er pointin. to"ards !is . ilt. :See H.#. Sun!ara an! others vs. State of Karnataka* Criminal +$$eal %o.2,- of 2011 !e.i!e! on 2).0 .2023/ Kali Ram vs. State of H.0.* 1 -3 (2) SCC '0' an! Chan!ra$$a an! others vs. State of Karnataka* (200-) , SCC ,15=. A Di'ision -enc! of t!is Co rt in t!e / d.+ent passed in S$($! of Haryana vs. +nkit an! others in CRM1+ %o.3 of 2022 decided on 06.07.2023 !as !eld t!at pres +ption of innocence f rt!er .ets entrenc!ed on t!e acti ittal of acc sed -) t!e trial Co rt.

¶14In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which warrants any interference. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, being bereft of any merit.

¶15Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

31.07.2024

221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-AS-384-2023 Date of decision: 31.07.2024 Sxxx ....Appellant Versus Ashwin @ Asho and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate and Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate for the appellant