The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted an appellant convicted in rape case in 2004, holding that the cumulative effect of several infirmities in the prosecution evidence, including the complete absence of injuries despite the prosecutrix's claim of a violent struggle created a reasonable doubt sufficient to displace the conviction. [2026 LL (PH) 240]

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal said, "The complete absence of injuries despite the specific allegation of a violent physical struggle, the absence of any indication of the alleged trampled wheat crop at the place of occurrence, the withholding of Kuljit Singh, who was projected by the prosecution itself as a material witness, the unexplained discrepancy regarding the police having visited the place of occurrence prior to the registration of the FIR, the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the inconclusive nature of the Chemical Examiner's report and the probability of the defence plea, when considered together, create a reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version."

The Court added that, "the trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. Instead of evaluating the cumulative effect of the material infirmities and inconsistencies appearing in the prosecution case, each circumstance was considered in isolation and explained away on conjectures and surmises. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial, where the prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

It clarified further that the Court is not unmindful of the settled legal position that the testimony of a prosecutrix, "if found to be wholly reliable and of sterling quality, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of independent corroboration. Equally well settled, however, is the principle that such testimony, like that of any other witness, must inspire the confidence of the Court and withstand the test of careful judicial scrutiny. In the present case, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the evidence led by the prosecution falls short of the standard required to record a conviction. The material infirmities noticed during the course of appreciation of evidence create a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version, and it would, therefore, be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant."

The prosecution case was that on 17.02.2004, the appellant, Jaspal Singh, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in an agricultural field near her village, while threatening to kill her if she raised an alarm. It was alleged that her cries attracted one Kuljit Singh, who was grazing goats nearby and witnessed the occurrence, causing the appellant to flee.

The prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband, Jagroop Singh, on his return home that evening, and FIR was registered the following day, 18.02.2004, at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur.

For the appellant, it was argued that the prosecutrix's testimony did not inspire confidence: despite her claim of physically resisting the assault, her medico-legal examination revealed no external injury whatsoever, and the site plan prepared during investigation did not show any trampled crop, contrary to her claim that the standing wheat crop was trampled in the course of the struggle.

It was further contended that the prosecution had withheld Kuljit Singh, projected in the FIR itself as an eyewitness, without examining him at trial; that the husband's cross-examination revealed the police had visited the site at 9 a.m. on 18.02.2004, hours before the FIR was even registered that evening, an unexplained inconsistency in the prosecution's own chronology; and that no explanation had been furnished for the roughly 33-hour delay in lodging the FIR after the incident was disclosed to the husband.

It was also pointed out that the prosecutrix admitted other village women customarily visited the fields around the same time, and that her mother-in-law, who usually accompanied her, had not done so that day.

The State supported the conviction, submitting that the prosecutrix's testimony was natural, consistent and trustworthy, that the delay in lodging the FIR was attributable to the social stigma associated with such offences, and that her version stood corroborated by the Chemical Examiner's report detecting semen on her clothing.

Following investigation and trial, at which eight witnesses were examined including the prosecutrix, her husband, the two medico-legal examiners, and the Investigating Officer, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, with a further year's imprisonment in default.

The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court, denying the allegations and asserting false implication arising from a monetary dispute with the prosecutrix's husband.

The Court pointed that husband's testimony that police had visited the site at 9 a.m. on 18.02.2004, hours before the FIR was registered that evening, went unexplained by the prosecution and, in the Court's view, struck at the very chronology of its case, a contradiction the trial court had failed to address.

The roughly 33-hour delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of any explanation for it, was held to leave open the possibility of deliberation before setting the criminal law in motion, it held.

The Chemical Examiner's report, which only established the presence of semen on the prosecutrix's clothing without any scientific evidence linking it to the appellant — and where the prosecutrix was a married woman living with her husband, was held not to provide meaningful corroboration.

Holding that the trial court had erred by considering each of these circumstances in isolation rather than assessing their cumulative effect, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges, with his bail and surety bonds discharged.

Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab

CRA-S- 1956- SB-2004

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab

Click here to read order