Case title:- Pankaj Singh Versus State of Harayana
Case No:-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1753/2023
Decided on:-March 21,2024
Quorum:- ABHAY S.OKA, J
Facts of the case:-
In this instance, the rosecutrix was 28 years old at the time of the incident. The prosecutrix and the appellant-accused were both married. It is documented that the Prosecutrix held a degree. The prosecutrix made the allegation. Is that the appellant was her husband’s brother’s friend.She knew the appellant, for that reason. The appellant went to a place named Hansi on May 22, 2018, to see a physician.The appellant arrived as she was waiting to board a bus to return to Bhiwani, where she was lodging. He was heading to Bhiwani and asked the Prosecutrix to ride along in his automobile. Under the guise of experiencing stomach pain and he led the appellant to a room in the Jindal Guest House in Bhiwani so he could discharge himself. After forcing the door open from the inside, he had an intimate relationship with the Prosecutrix. He threatened to send her the offensive photos to her family if she told anybody about the situation after taking them.
Legal Provisions
The Offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.The maximum sentence imposed is life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.1,00,00/-.It is against the appellant-accused for the Offences punishable under Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii) and 506 of the IPC.
Appellant Contentions:-
The Prosecutrix’s testimony as well as that of the other significant prosecution witnesses have been reviewed by the knowledgeable attorney representing the accused appellant. His submission is that the appellant-accused and the prosecutrix had a consensual relationship. He said that both the prosecutor and the accused went around, and it is acknowledged that the prosecutor accompanied the accused person voluntarily. He further argued that had the police presented the CCTV tape from the Jindal Guest House, the supposed site of the incident, it would have demonstrated that the appellant-accused and the prosecutrix had entered and exited the building with joy. His argument is that the Prosecutrix’s proof should be rejected.
Respondent Contentions:-
The State’s knowledgeable attorney defended the contested rulings. He argued that since the prosecutrix had proven there had been coerced sexual relations, her evidence could not be rejected on technical grounds. He also argued that as it is established law that the Prosecutrix cannot be injured, this version cannot be discounted on the grounds that she was not hurt. The Prosecutrix’s WhatsApp exchange with the accused appellant was cited by the Prosecutrix’s knowledgeable legal representation. In light of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he argued that even though the certificate required by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not produced regarding the WhatsApp conversation that was produced on record, the appellant-accused had not objected to its production. The WhatsApp exchange is acceptable as proof. He made use of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872’s Section 114A presumption. He stated that It would have to be assumed that the prosecutor’s consent was not obtained for the sexual encounter. He argued that the offense in this instance falls under sub-Section (2), clause (f), of Section 376 of the IPC. He further argued that the appellant-accused was in a position of trust as far as the Prosecutrix was concerned, meaning that clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC Will apply. As a result, he claimed, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act should be applied in this particular case. Additionally, he stated that no proof had been presented by the accused appellant to support his innocence. He stated that there is no need for intervention considering the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial court.
Judgement:-
In this case, It is nobody’s case that the appellant-accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the WhatsApp chats. Moreover, Sub-Section (3) of Section 294 of the Cr.PC indicates that even if a particular document is not disputed, the Court has the discretion to read or not to read the same in evidence without formal proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The Court always has the power to require the signature to be proved. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix based on Section 294 of the Cr.PC has absolutely no merit. In any case, a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been produced. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and they are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the Charges framed against him. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The appellant is on bail. Therefore, his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
