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.
There is no doubt that the evidence of the prosecutrix will have to be kept at a higher pedestal but then, such a testimony will have to satisfy the conscience of the Court. It has to be seen contextually in the light of the other evidence available. It does appear that the appellant wanted to marry the prosecutrix which was stoutly opposed by her family. We are not willing to go into the subsequent compromise made between the parties, which happened after the death of PW4. The submission made by the counsel for the appellant appears to be probable when pitted against the version of the prosecution.
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.
Conviction set aside
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(WEB) 13 SC
DAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Criminal appeal no. 12 of 2015-Decided on 22-6-2023
Click to See Full Text of Judgment 2023 STPL(WEB) 13 SC
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-STPLWEB-13-SC.pdf
