TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with the rich tenant boy in return for clothes and trips from him. The Appellant at about 6.00 A.M. on 19.02.1996, allegedly pushed the visiting prosecutrix into the room occupied by the tenant boy and bolted it from the outside. It was only on hearing the prosecutrix's screams that after five minutes the door was unlocked, with her father (Hari Singh, PW-2), Bhan Singh and Karnail Singh standing outside. Swiftly, the boy ran out of the room and successfully escaped. Upon the prosecutrix emerging from the room, her father protested and expressed his dismay to the by-standing Appellant. Scared for their reputation, the prosecutrix and her father returned to their home without reporting the matter to anyone, except the prosecutrix's mother. However, on 24.02.1996 at 7.00 A.M., the Appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix outside her house and threatened to kill her brother if anyone was informed of the matter. The prosecutrix was able to escape the Appellant's clutches and worried at this high-handedness, proceeded with her father towards the police station to report these two incidents and lodged a complaint. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t held that the Appellant had intentionally induced the prosecutrix to perform illicit intercourse with her male tenant, and that she had also criminally intimidated the prosecutrix by threatening her family member. Noting the large number of dependents that the Appellant had to support as a single lady, and considering the lack of commission of any assault or rape against the prosecutrix, the Appellant was concurrently sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000 (or further six months rigorous imprisonment in lieu thereof) Under Section 366A, and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 (or further three months rigorous imprisonment in lieu thereof) Under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. 7. The aggrieved Appellant approached the High Court which too refused to interfere with the order of conviction. While dismissing the appeal, the High Court observed that the statement of the Accused Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure appeared to be an after-thought, and that in the absence of any evidence proving enmity between the parties it was impossible that anyone would falsely implicate a woman in such like offence. The minority of the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the factual matrix of this case. Many aspects, as discussed hereunder, have completely been ignored or only dealt with hastily. Further, the reasoning is generic and is premised upon generalisations which may not be necessarily true always. It is indisputable that parents would not ordinarily endanger the reputation of their minor daughter merely to falsely implicate their opponents, but such cliches ought not to be the sole basis of dismissing reasonable doubts created and/or defences set out by the Accused. 11. Similarly, the five-day delay in registration of the FIR, in the facts and circumstances of this case, gains importance as the father of the victim is an eye-witness to a part of the occurrence. It is difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving the law into motion. Sweeping assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIRs for sexual offences, send a problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants. Instead, the facts of each individual case and the behaviour of the parties involved ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a conclusion on the reason and effect of delay in registra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly threatened the prosecutrix on 24.02.1996 are not even marked. Letters which the prosecutrix alleged in her examination-in-chief and police complaint that the Appellant got written from her, have not been produced during trial. These could have shed light on the relationship between the Accused, prosecutrix and the male tenant prior to the incident. It is the duty of the prosecution to lead the best evidence in its possession, and failure to do so ought to lead to an adverse inference.^2 15. Non-examination of Bhan Singh and Karnail Singh is also a noticeable lapse, given the gaps in the prosecution story. It appears that no serious attempt was made to get them examined to resolve the contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Such lack of examination of material independent witnesses, adversely affects the case of the prosecution. This Court in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 145, viewed that: 19. ... It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a year, whereas this period was materially less at only 2-3 months per her father. Fourth, whereas prosecutrix claimed that her father and Bhan Singh unsuccessfully attempted to catch the tenant while he was escaping from the room, PW-2 himself states that he was too perplexed to either run or raise any alarm. Fifth and most notably, on the point of recording of the FIR, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 all differ noticeably. Whereas PW-1 claims that the complaint was recorded by PW-5 while sitting on a "patthar" (stone), PW-2 claims that the same was recorded by PW-5 while sitting on a "concrete bench" in the waiting shed of a bus stand in the presence of two other policemen. Most intriguingly, PW-5 gives an entirely third version, claiming that he was present at the bus stand with five other police officials and that the statement was written not by him but by another ASI, who placed the papers on the bonnet of the jeep while standing. 19. In addition to these inconsistencies which cast a serious shadow of doubt over the version of events put forth by the prosecution, the accounts of PW-1 and PW-2 are superficial and lack detail. Important links of the story, including w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pe with the police, but she also had to take pains in filing a private complaint and prosecuting the case against such third party. In fact, the effect of these proceedings was in line with the Appellant's defence, for in that rape trial the trial Court drew a damning observation against her character (calling her a child trafficker) owing to these proceedings. 24. Lastly, DW-1, who lived in the neighbourhood of the parties, both supported the Appellant's claim that there was no male tenant in her home and created sufficiently reasonable connection between Bhola Singh and the prosecutrix's father by volunteering that PW-2 was residing in Bhola Singh's premises. Reliance on mere admission by DW-1 during cross-examination that PW-2 was a government employee, neither negates the defense of false implication nor does it imply that PW-2 couldn't be working with Bhola Singh in a part-time/casual capacity or staying in Bhola Singh's house. Thus, the trial Court's analysis of the Appellant's Section 313 defence ought to have been deeper, before concluding it as being false or untrustworthy. V. Charge of Criminal Intimidation 25. Proving the intentio....