2020 (7) TMI 794 - SC - Indian Laws

Malicious prosecution of sexual abuses - Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis - Failure to refute Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure statement - Shoddy investigation and prosecution - Charge of Criminal Intimidation. Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis - HELD THAT - It is found from the impugned orders that the Courts below failed in making the desired attempt to delve deep into the factual matrix of this case. Many aspects 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. It is beyond comprehension that the prosecutrix s father and his two male associates failed to stop the tenant boy who was allegedly about to commit a sexual offence with the minor victim and neither did they later make any attempt to even register a complaint against him - the father of the prosecutrix merely registered his protest to the Appellant on the scene instead of reacting instinctively and approaching police authorities when faced with possible trafficking of his daughter. This conduct of belatedly proceeding against only the prosecutrix creates a lurking suspicion against the prosecution case and it may not be totally improbable to infer that it was a malicious attempt at the behest of Bhola Singh to falsely implicate a weak rape victim and stifle her ability to seek justice. Shoddy investigation and prosecution - HELD THAT - The trial Court has summarily disregarded the contradictions highlighted by the defense side on the premise that such contradictions had no material bearing and that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix. The High Court too has opined that PW-1 and PW-2 have completely corroborated each other and their testimonies were impeccable. These reasons are not only contrary to the record but they also lead to an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof imposed in criminal trials. There are numerous clear contradictions between the testimonies of these two star-witnesses which we find fatal to the prosecution case - 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 what happened in the crucial five minutes when the girl was locked inside the room or how the male tenant reacted are missing. Failure to refute Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure statement - HELD THAT - In the case at hand the alternate version given by the Appellant could not be lightly brushed aside. Her two-part defence put succinctly was that first there was no male tenant at all and no one except for her child and mother lived with her and second that she was being falsely implicated as vengeance for filing a rape complaint against one Bhola Singh with whom the prosecutrix s father used to work - 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. Charge of Criminal Intimidation - HELD THAT - Proving the intention of the Appellant to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act and not mere utterances of words is a pre-requisite of successful conviction Under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has undertaken no such separate analysis or recorded any finding on this count thus calling into question the conviction for criminal intimidation. Further the nature of this charge is such that it is a derivative of the main charge of procuration of minor girls . Given the facts of this case where the common testimony of PW-1 on both charges has been doubted it would be unwise to rely upon it as the sole piece of evidence to convict the Appellant for criminal intimidation without any other corroboration. In the facts of the present case neither is Section 366A by itself a sexual offence in the strict sense nor do the inactions of the prosecutrix or her father inspire confidence on genuineness of the prosecution story. No steps were taken to avail of medical examination of the victim nor was the Panchayat or any social forum approached for any form of redress till the occurrence of the second alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the Appellant Under Section 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt - the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below are set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in registration of FIR.
2. Contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
3. Failure to refute the defense's alternate version under Section 313 CrPC.
4. Lack of serious investigation and prosecution efforts.
5. Charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Delay in Registration of FIR:
The Supreme Court found that the five-day delay in registering the FIR was significant given the circumstances. The father of the victim was an eye-witness to part of the occurrence, making it difficult to understand why he would wait for a second incident before approaching the police. The Court emphasized that sweeping assumptions about delays in registering FIRs for sexual offenses can be problematic and should not be the sole basis for dismissing reasonable doubts or defenses set out by the accused. The Court noted that the facts of each case should be analyzed individually to understand the reason and effect of the delay.

II. Contradictions in Testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses:
The Supreme Court highlighted numerous contradictions between the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her father (PW-2). These included discrepancies in who was present when the door was unlocked, differences in the description of the male tenant, and conflicting accounts of how the FIR was recorded. The Court found these contradictions to be significant and noted that they cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events. The Court also pointed out that the testimonies were superficial and lacked important details, further undermining the prosecution's case.

III. Failure to Refute the Defense's Alternate Version Under Section 313 CrPC:
The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for not adequately considering the defense's alternate version of events presented under Section 313 CrPC. The appellant had claimed that there was no male tenant and that the complaint was motivated by revenge due to a previous rape allegation she had made against Bhola Singh. The Court found that this defense was plausible and should not have been lightly brushed aside. The Court also noted that DW-1's testimony supported the appellant's claim and created a reasonable doubt about the existence of the male tenant.

IV. Lack of Serious Investigation and Prosecution Efforts:
The Supreme Court found that both the investigation agency and the prosecutor failed to make a serious effort to prove the appellant's guilt. The police were unable to discover the name or antecedents of the male tenant, and there were significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence, such as the non-examination of material witnesses like Bhan Singh and Karnail Singh. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to lead the best evidence available should lead to an adverse inference against it.

V. Charge of Criminal Intimidation Under Section 506 IPC:
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had not undertaken a separate analysis or recorded any findings on the charge of criminal intimidation. The Court emphasized that proving the intention to cause alarm or compel action is a prerequisite for a conviction under Section 506 IPC. Given the doubts about the common testimony of PW-1 on both charges, the Court found it unwise to rely on it as the sole piece of evidence for the criminal intimidation charge without any corroboration.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 366A and 506 IPC. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower courts, and acquitted the appellant, consequently setting her free.