Supreme Court Acquits Woman in Minor Procuration and Intimidation Case

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni vs. State of Punjab, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and criticized the lower courts for overlooking inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

The case revolved around allegations that the appellant had attempted to procure a minor girl for illicit intercourse and had later intimidated her. The trial court sentenced the appellant to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Parminder Kaur, a single mother, attempted to lure a minor girl into a sexual act with her tenant. The incident allegedly occurred on February 19, 1996, when the appellant locked the minor in a room with the tenant. The girl managed to escape after five minutes. Subsequently, the appellant allegedly threatened the girl’s family with dire consequences if they reported the incident.

The complaint was filed five days later, on February 24, 1996. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the victim, her father, a draftsman who prepared the site plan, a school official who confirmed the victim’s age, and the investigating officer. The appellant denied all charges and claimed that she was falsely implicated due to a prior case she had filed against a local man.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The appellant’s counsel argued:

• The testimonies of the victim and her father contained material contradictions, making their statements unreliable.
• The five-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained and created doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
• No effort was made by the prosecution to identify or trace the tenant, casting doubt on the entire story.
• The appellant was falsely implicated as revenge for a prior rape complaint she had filed against another man.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Punjab contended:

• The testimony of the victim and her father was sufficient to establish guilt.
• The delay in filing the FIR was due to the social stigma associated with such cases.
• The prosecution had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Inconsistencies in Prosecution Witnesses

The Court noted that the testimonies of the victim and her father were inconsistent on crucial details. The victim claimed only two people were outside when she escaped, whereas her father said there were three. Their descriptions of the tenant also varied significantly.

2. Unexplained Delay in Filing FIR

The Court criticized the prosecution for failing to explain why the complaint was filed five days after the alleged incident. It observed:

“It is difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident before moving the law into motion.”

3. Lack of Investigation

The investigating officer failed to identify or locate the tenant. The Court found this lapse crucial, stating:

“If the tenant was a regular resident of the appellant’s home, there is no reason why the police could not trace him.”

4. Alternative Explanation Not Considered

The appellant’s claim that she was framed due to a prior rape case she had filed was ignored by the lower courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that:

“The trial court and the High Court failed to properly evaluate the defense version, which raised significant doubts about the prosecution’s case.”

5. Failure to Establish Criminal Intimidation

The Court held that the prosecution did not establish the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. It ruled:

“Mere verbal threats without an intention to cause alarm do not fulfill the criteria for criminal intimidation.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeal.
• Set aside the convictions under Sections 366A and 506 IPC.
• Acquitted the appellant and ordered her release.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal if they raise serious doubts.
• Delays in lodging an FIR must be satisfactorily explained, especially in cases of serious allegations.
• The prosecution must investigate all aspects of the case, including tracing relevant persons.
• Courts must consider defense arguments seriously before convicting an accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the principle that criminal convictions must be based on reliable and consistent evidence. The ruling serves as an important precedent in cases involving allegations of sexual offenses and coercion, reinforcing the need for rigorous scrutiny in criminal trials.

Petitioner Name: Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 28-07-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Parminder Kaur @ P.P vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-07-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category