Supreme Court Acquits Two Accused in Punjab Gang Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in Avtar Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, where it overturned the convictions of two men accused of gang rape. The case involved allegations of kidnapping and repeated sexual assault, but the Court found that inconsistencies in the evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and lack of medical corroboration raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to July 22, 1996, when the prosecutrix (XYZ) alleged that she was abducted by Avtar Singh while going to ease herself in a maize field. She claimed that she was forced to inhale an intoxicating substance, after which she lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in a room with Avtar Singh, who allegedly raped her and threatened her with a knife. She further alleged that she was detained in the house of one Gian Singh, where another accused, Sohan Lal, also raped her. According to her statement:

• She was held captive from July 22 to July 24, 1996.
• She was allegedly raped multiple times by Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal.
• She was later taken to a Bajra field, where she was again raped.
• She escaped and informed her mother, who accompanied her to the police station to file an FIR on July 25, 1996.

The police charged the accused under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 342, and 506 of the IPC. The trial court convicted Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal but acquitted the third accused, Gian Singh. The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-personal-liberty-landmark-judgment-on-anticipatory-bail/

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the prosecution proved the charges of gang rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Whether contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements affected the credibility of the case.
• Whether medical and forensic evidence corroborated the allegations.

Petitioner’s (Avtar Singh & Sohan Lal) Arguments

• The prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses.
• There was an unexplained delay of one day in filing the FIR, despite the alleged gravity of the offense.
• The medical report showed no signs of external or internal injury, which contradicted the prosecutrix’s claims of repeated sexual assault.
• Gian Singh, who was allegedly one of the perpetrators, was acquitted, which broke the chain of events described by the prosecutrix.
• The prosecution failed to prove the presence of semen on the clothes of the prosecutrix or to link any DNA evidence to the accused.
• The prosecutrix’s statement about being detained in an under-construction house was contradicted by the testimony of laborers working on-site.

Respondent’s (State of Punjab) Arguments

• The prosecutrix had no reason to falsely implicate the accused.
• The trial court and High Court found her testimony credible, and re-evaluating evidence at this stage was unwarranted.
• Delay in filing an FIR in rape cases should not be considered fatal, as victims often take time to come forward due to societal pressures.
• Medical evidence should not be the sole basis for rejecting the testimony of a rape survivor.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction and acquitted both accused, making the following key observations:

• Inconsistencies in Testimony: The Court found contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements regarding where she was detained and how the alleged events unfolded.
• Failure to Prove Kidnapping: The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm despite allegedly being held captive in an area where laborers were working.
• Acquittal of Gian Singh: Since the trial court acquitted Gian Singh, who was allegedly present during the crime, the entire narrative of continuous captivity and repeated assault became doubtful.
• Medical Examination Findings: The medical report indicated that the prosecutrix was well-nourished and did not show signs of physical struggle or injuries.
• No Forensic Link to the Accused: Despite allegations of multiple rapes, the forensic report did not match any physical evidence to the accused.
• Unexplained Delay in Filing the FIR: The delay of one day in reporting the crime, without a valid explanation, raised doubts about the authenticity of the allegations.

Directions Issued

• The Supreme Court set aside the convictions of Avtar Singh and Sohan Lal.
• The accused were acquitted, and their bail bonds were discharged.
• The ruling applied only to the present case and did not affect any other pending matters against the accused.

Impact of the Judgment

• Legal Precedent on False Allegations: The judgment reinforces the need for thorough scrutiny in sexual assault cases to prevent wrongful convictions.
• Importance of Corroboration: The ruling highlights the necessity of supporting evidence in cases of serious allegations.
• Delay in FIR as a Factor: While delay alone does not discredit a victim’s testimony, it can raise doubts when coupled with contradictions in evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab underscores the importance of due process in criminal cases. While sexual assault allegations must be taken seriously, the Court reaffirmed that every accused person has the right to a fair trial and that convictions cannot be sustained on weak or contradictory evidence. This ruling will serve as an important precedent in similar cases requiring close judicial scrutiny of evidence.

Petitioner Name: Avtar Singh & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Rajesh Bindal.
Place Of Incident: Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 02-08-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: avtar-singh-&-anr.-vs-state-of-punjab-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-08-2023.pdf