Appeal
1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decisions, the present appeal is filed.
Facts
2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant came to the residence of the prosecutrix and committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, brandishing a knife. The brother of the victim namely Pargat Singh came home and 1 upon seeing him, the appellant took to his heels. On returning home, PW4, the father of the prosecutrix, filed a complaint for quarrel alone as he felt that the dignity of his daughter, PW6 was at stake.
3. After the aforesaid occurrence dated 15.03.2000, the appellant along with the few other co-accused persons went to the residence of the uncle of the prosecutrix wherein she was temporarily staying anticipating trouble, and exerted threats. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged on 13.04.2000 in FIR No.60/2000 under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC.
Discussion
8. The prosecutrix PW6 did not allege that the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was committed at her uncle’s residence. Admittedly, there is delay of 28 days in giving the complaint. The reasons assigned cannot be accepted as it defies reason and logic. If the intention of PW4 was to suppress the occurrence, there is no need to give the complaint subsequently. He did give a complaint which was not even registered. Strangely, the complaint was given by PW4 who was not present on both the occasions. Further, to commit the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC no sane person would take two accomplices, that too after committing a similar offence earlier. The best person to depose would have been the uncle of the prosecutrix Satnam Singh. There is no attempt to recover the knife from the appellant as it is a specific case of the prosecution that he committed the offence by threatening to harm the prosecutrix. The prosecution, for the reasons best known to them, has not chosen to examine him as well. PW4 is not the eye-witness. There is absolutely no reason as to why the son of PW4, who is incidentally the brother of PW6, has not been examined being the sole eye-witness. On the issue of nonexamination of material witness, we wish to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145.
9. In Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200: “Non-examination of witness”.
12. If they feel no action was taken after the alleged occurrence and the matter was compromised as projected by the prosecution, there would have been other independent witnesses as well. The prosecution has not produced any such witness. The Courts below have not considered the evidence available on record in the proper perspective. They got carried away by the statement made by PW6. The evidence would also suggest that PW4 was not willing to give his daughter in marriage to the appellant though he was desirous of marrying her. In fact, the First Information Report itself speaks about the aforesaid fact.
Appeal allowed.
Party
Davinder Singh vs. State of Punjab – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12 of 2015 – June 22, 2023
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/27802/27802_2014_6_103_44729_Judgement_22-Jun-2023.pdf
