STATE
OF PUNJAB VS GURMIT SINGH
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
|
NAME OF THE CASE |
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh
&Ors |
|
CITATION |
1996 AIR 1393, 1996 SCC (2) 384 |
|
DATE OF JUDGEMENT |
16th January, 1996 |
|
APPELANT |
State of punjab |
|
RESPONDENT |
Gurmit singh |
|
BENCH/JUDGE |
Anand, a.s. (j) |
|
STATUTES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVED |
The Terrorist Affected Areas (Special
Courts) Act, 1984, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
|
IMPORTANT
SECTIONS/ARTICLES |
Section 363, 366, 368, and 376 of
Indian Penal Code |
ABSTRACT
In
State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh case, the said appeal under Section 14 of the
Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the
judgment and order of Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana dated 01.06.1985
by which the respondents were acquitted of the charge of abduction and rape.The
Trial court not only erroneously disbelieved the prosecutrix but quietly
uncharitably and unjustifiably even characterized her as a girl of loose morals
or such type of girl. It is the erroneous inference drawn by the court baseless
of any evidence which has shocked our judicial conscience.
INTRODUCTION
The
case is an appeal in the Supreme Court of India under Section 14 of the
Terrorist Affected Areas (special courts) Act,1984.In this case, the
respondents are acquitted of rape and the charge of abduction of a minor girl.
In this appeal, the corroboration of the prosecutrix statement was questioned,
and a new light is elucidated in the judgement through the lack of sensitivity
of the trial court of India.
Background
Of Study Crime Against Women
Over
the past few decades, crime rates have skyrocketed. This is the reason why
Parliament has passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983)
to make the laws stronger and the rape case more real. Subsequently, sections
375 and 376 Amendment Act and provided that several provisions were made to
punish those who abused or abused their women even if they were under their
care or care.
The
law of evidence also played an important role in this amendment as it was
complied with and was used to strengthen the evidence and prove the claims.
Section 114A was also added to the Evidence Act to give a clear idea of the
absence of a permit for certain prosecutions for rape.
To
facilitate, amendment, Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which deals
with the right to an accused in an open trial) was also amended by the addition
of Sections 2 and 3 after the replacement of the old section numbers as
Subsections (1). Sections 2 and 3 of Section 327 Cr. P.C.
FACTS
OF THE CASE
- That the prosecutrix was
a young girl below 16 years of age, studying in the 10th class
at the relevant time in Government High School, Pakhowal. The
matriculation examinations were being conducted at the concerned time.
- On 30th March
1984, after attending her Geography exam, the prosecutrix was on his way
to her uncle’s house. Suddenly a blue ambassador car being driven by a
Sikh youth, aged 20/25 years containing all the three accused, i.e. Gurmit
Singh, Jagjit Singh and Ranjit Singh, stopped near her.
- According to the prosecution’s
story, Ranjit Singh came out of the car and caught hold of the prosecutrix
from her and pushed her inside the car. Jagjit Singh allegedly
put his private part to the mouth of the victim, while Gurmit Singh
threatened her to death. All the three accused drove her to the tube well
owned by Ranjit Singh and the driver of the car left the prosecutrix along
with them and he himself went away with the car. It was at this place
where each of the three accused committed sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix forcibly and against her will.[1]
- On the very next day at about
6.00 a.m, the same car arrived at the tube well and the three accused made
her to sit in that car and left her near the Boys High School, near about
the place from where she had been abducted. On the same day, the
prosecutrix had to attend her examination.
- After her examination, the
prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother, Smt. Gurdev Kaur. Further,
when her father came to know of the story, he straightaway contacted the
Sarpanch Joginder Singh of the village and later a panchayat was convened
and the matter was brought to the notice of the Sarpanch of village
Pakhowal as well.
- Since no justice of relief was
being provided by both the panchayats, an FIR was being lodged in the
police station where the prosecutrix and her mother were taken to a
primary health centre for the medical examination of the victim. As per
the medical examination, it was found that the hymen of the prosecutrix
was ruptured with fine radiate tears, swollen and painful. Her pubic hair
was also found matted.
- While investigating, the
police took into possession a sealed parcel handed over by the lady doctor
containing the salwar of the prosecutrix along with 5 slides of vaginal
smears and one sealed vial containing pubic hair of the prosecutrix.
- As pointed out by the
prosecutrix, the investigating officer prepared a rough site plan of the
Kotha and a search was made for the accused on 02.04.1984, but they were
not found. On 03.04.1984, a raid was also being conducted at the houses of
the accused in order to trace them but all at vain.
- On 05.04.1984 the
accused Jagjit Singh and Ranjit Singh were produced before the investigating
officer and were further sent for medical examination where it was
established that both the accused were fit to perform sexual intercourse.
- On 09.04.1984, the third
accused, i.e. Gurmit Singh, was arrested and on medical examination, he
too was deemed fit to perform sexual intercourse. The sealed parcels
containing the slides of vaginal smears, the public hair and the salwar of
the prosecutrix, were sent to the chemical examiner and on examining, he
further revealed that semen was found on the vaginal smears though no
spermatozoa was found either on the public hair or the salwar of the
prosecutrix.[2]
- Thus, on the completion of the
investigation, the accused were challenged and charged for the offences
under Section 363, 366, 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The Trial Court disbelieved
the version of the prosecutrix and, finding no substance in her testimony,
passed the judgment of acquittal of the accused, which is challenged
before the concerned court through the said appeal.
ISSUE
RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
1. Whether
the prosecution’s story stands fortified by any cogent or reliable evidence or
not, and if there’s any need for validating evidence to be brought in court as
per the Evidence Act of 1872?
2. Whether
the decision of the trial court acquitting the respondents were justiciable?
ARGUMENTS
FROM THE APPELANT SIDE
1. Appellant
argued that the prosecutor was a minor under the age of 16, was in 10th class
and was abducted and assaulted. The three were kidnapped by a blue ambassador
and threatened with his life and then twice attacked at the instigation of the
three convicted Ranjit, Gurmit Singh and Bawa. The prosecutor recounted the
entire incident to her mother, and her father, Trilok Singh, contacted the
sarpanch who did not find relief from the victim, which led to a police
complaint.[3]
2. She
had been severely examined by a female doctor who had given the prosecutor's
salwar and five slides of vaginal smears and one closed pial with prosecutrix
pubic hair which was found to be weighed and the prosecutor's hymn was a
lacerated with fine radiate tears swollen and painful. Dr. B.L. Bansal
re-examined the three suspects on the same day after they were presented, and
the doctor suggested they were deemed fit for sexual intercourse.
3. A
chemical inspector's report indicated that sperm were found on the sides of the
prosecutor's genitals. The female specialist had fixed the speculum of the
vagina by taking swabs on the back of the vaginal fornix of the prosecutrix to
prepare the slides and as the width of the speculum was around two fingers the
chances that the prosecutor had arranged sex would not be ruled out.
4. The
prosecutor testified that he was taken by bus to Pakhowal Adda on a meter road
which could raise an alarm as it was being threatened and it was the
investigator's job to find the driver as he passed from there. The panchayats
of both villages have also been linked with a view to resolving the issue. The
fact that she was a young girl and bound by the rules of the community and her
family's reputation in the community would not be public and she would report
the incident to any outsider who was the main basis for the prosecutor to go to
the police.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
1. Respondents
in their response their statements were recorded under section 313 Cr. The P.C
where they spoke out in total denial of the allegations the prosecutors were
facing. First Jagjit Singh pointed out that it was a false case, and he was
forced into it because of hostility and thesarpanch of the Pakhowal city.
2. There
were allegations that he had married a Canadian woman in the Gurudwara area
that was not popular with the sarpanch and as a result, he had no friendship
with her and was therefore imprisoned for his unfaithfulness. Gurmit Singh's
respondent responded that he had been falsely impaled because of hostilities
between his father and Trilok Singh, the father of the prosecutor. He said
there was a civil case going on between the father and the prosecutor's father
and their families were not on good terms.[4]
3. Therefore,
he was forced to be beaten by Trilok Singh for reasons of doubt that he may
have made a few people arrest his daughter and nephew the next day and promised
to beat Trilok Singh again. Ranjit Singh's respondent said he had been found
guilty of misconduct but did not give reasons for his repression. Jagjit Singh
nicknamed Bawa produced Kuldeep Singh and Amarjit Singh defending and providing
proof that a copy of his passport and marriage certificate with a Canadian girl
also provided photographic evidence of C&D evidence in his marriage to a Canadian
girl. However, the other defendant did not have any evidence against him.
OVERVIEW
OF THE JUDGEMENT
The
Court reproved keeping all proof into account that the prosecutrix was careful
and the case was past sensible uncertainty for the respondents, so the Court
rebuked them under infringement of area 363,366,368 and 376 of the Indian Penal
code, 1860. As the wrongdoing occurred when the respondents were 21-24 years
and maybe hitched after, under all the conceivable outcomes that were thought
of under Section 376, IPC was condemned to five years of confinement and
penalized by Rs.5000/- each with 1-year rigorous imprisonment for Section 363
of IPC as well.
However,
were given no different sentences under Section 366/368 IPC and in default of
non-payment of the penalty was further sentenced 1-year rigorous imprisonment
under Section 376 IPC. The Court did not reward the family of the victim with
any compensation as there was a penalty imposed with no scheme for
compensation.
CONCLUSION
Justice
is late Justice is denied, a line that has been ringing in the mind of the
prosecutor (name withheld) for 8 long years. Not many 4 lakh unresolved cases
have reached the media and have never been highlighted by millions who are not
even registered due to the end of the legal system.[5]In
the case of The State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh &Ors. the victim, who was
under 16 years of age at the start of the trial, had to put up with telling her
side of the story in public, which could have hurt her as a minor, as soft as
her, and irreparably damaged her. The high court knew that the lower courts had
not handled the case properly and should have been more compassionate in
dealing with the victim of a sexual crime.They held that the rapist not only
tarnished the victim's privacy but also inflicted serious damage to his or her
psychological well-being, which was only reinforced by the Court where the
victim's evidence could be considered as a cornerstone even if he or she could
not prove it.
[1]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1046545/
[2]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1046545/
[3]https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6044-state-of-punjab-v-s-gurmit-singh.html
[4]https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6044-state-of-punjab-v-s-gurmit-singh.html
[5]https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6044-state-of-punjab-v-s-gurmit-singh.html
0 Comments