2016 (9) TMI 1641 - SC - Indian Laws

Molestation - Reliability of statements of witnesses - acquittal of the accused - offence Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - The High Court, on proper re-appreciation of the entire evidence, came to the right conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the offence punishable Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. There is devastating increase in cases relating to crime against women in the world and our country is also no exception to it. Although the statutory provisions provide strict penal action against such offenders, it is for the courts to ultimately decide whether such incident has occurred or not. The courts should be more cautious in appreciating the evidence and the accused should not be left scot-free merely on flimsy grounds. By the consistent evidence of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the Appellant Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that on account of alleged enmity between the Appellant and Shri Duggal and Shri Ojha, he was falsely implicated. It would, however, be unusual in a conservative society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance. It is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offence, it has got to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a person. But, it is also equally true that those ingredients being state of mind may not be proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. The sequence of events which we have detailed earlier indicates that the Appellant-accused had the requisite culpable intention. The uncorroborated evidence of a hand writing expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal. The courts, should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence - No particular number of witnesses is required for proving a certain fact. It is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters. Evidence is weighed and not counted. Evidence of even a single eye witness, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining conviction. It is not necessary that all those persons who were present at the spot must be examined by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Having examined all the witnesses, even if other persons present nearby not examined, the evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded. Ms. Aradhana (PW-13) withstood her testimony from beginning till the end and her deposition was found reliable and corroborative with other prosecution witnesses and both the courts below were right in upholding the conviction of the Appellant-accused Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the Appellant-accused Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld while modifying the sentence to the period already undergone - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of molestation by the appellant-accused.
2. Delay in filing the complaint.
3. Competence and jurisdiction of the inquiry conducted by Shri R.R. Singh.
4. Credibility of witness testimonies.
5. Alleged rivalry and conspiracy against the appellant-accused.
6. Role of handwriting expert in verifying the signatures on the Memorandum.
7. Non-examination of material witnesses.
8. Sentencing and mitigating factors.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Molestation by the Appellant-Accused:
The prosecution's case was that the appellant-accused molested Ms. Ruchika on 12.08.1990. This was corroborated by the testimony of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), who witnessed the incident. The court found her testimony reliable and consistent. The appellant-accused's defense that the incident was fabricated due to the presence of many people around was not accepted by the court.

2. Delay in Filing the Complaint:
The court acknowledged the delay of about six days in presenting the complaint to the SHO but found it justified. It was noted that in a conservative society, victims might be reluctant to report incidents that could tarnish their reputation. The court accepted that the delay was due to the victim's fear of the appellant-accused, who was a high-ranking police officer.

3. Competence and Jurisdiction of the Inquiry Conducted by Shri R.R. Singh:
The court held that Shri R.R. Singh was legally competent to conduct the inquiry as he was authorized by the Government of Haryana. His report, which recommended the registration of a case against the appellant-accused, was considered valid and admissible under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. Credibility of Witness Testimonies:
The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), Shri Anand Prakash (PW-1), and others, credible. The court noted that there was no reason for these witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant-accused. The consistent and corroborative nature of their testimonies was emphasized.

5. Alleged Rivalry and Conspiracy Against the Appellant-Accused:
The appellant-accused argued that the case was a result of rivalry between HLTA and HTA and that senior officers had conspired against him. The court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. It was noted that even if there was some rivalry, it was not sufficient to fabricate such serious allegations.

6. Role of Handwriting Expert in Verifying the Signatures on the Memorandum:
The appellant-accused challenged the genuineness of Ms. Ruchika's signature on the Memorandum. The court held that expert evidence is only opinion evidence and cannot be conclusive. The signatures were identified by witnesses who were present when the Memorandum was signed, which was considered direct and primary evidence.

7. Non-Examination of Material Witnesses:
The appellant-accused contended that the non-examination of the ball picker Paltoo and Coach T. Thomas weakened the prosecution's case. The court held that adverse inference can only be drawn if evidence is withheld, not merely because certain witnesses were not examined. The court found that the testimony of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13) was sufficient to prove the offence.

8. Sentencing and Mitigating Factors:
The court considered the appellant-accused's old age, health ailments, and other mitigating factors. While upholding the conviction under Section 354 of the IPC, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant-accused, considering his advanced age and physical condition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 354 of the IPC but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, taking into account the mitigating factors. The appeal was disposed of on these terms.