INTRODUCTION

It is a ruling that addresses rape committed 11 years before 2020 and determines whether corroborative evidence is an essential component of legal credibility, as stated in Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Act was enacted in 1872 to sort through the ambiguities that arose throughout the process of obtaining proof and attempting to identify measures that would adequately provide the groundwork for legislation. The case is generally recognized and evaluated by the Evidence Act of 1872 and Section 118, as well as IPC sections 363, 366, 368, and 376. This case reveals significant variations in the requisite proof and credibility for rape victims. They bear a significant duty while attempting to defend the accused on rape allegations, and this Court, mindful of its obligation, should emphasize that courts frequently make the mistake of repeatedly asking the victim too many questions about the occurrence. 

The fact that she has witnessed how this is frequently used to belittle and humiliate the victim gives her joy in judgment, and it acts as a stepping stone in the fight for women’s rights. This illustrates the significance and well-being of the rape victim. The case is an appeal before the Supreme Court of India under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1984. In this case, the respondents are cleared of rape and abduction of a juvenile girl. In this appeal, the corroboration of the prosecutrix’s statement was called into doubt, and the judgment sheds new light on the trial court of India’s lack of sensitivity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecutrix was a 15-year-old girl in 10th grade at the time. On March 30, 1984, she was on her way to her maternal uncle’s house, and after around [100 km] from the school, a car driven by a Sikh teenager aged 20/25 years arrived from behind her. The car included all of the suspects, including Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh Bawa, and Ranjit Singh (the accused). A car pulled up next to her, and Ranjit Singh stepped out and grabbed the prosecutor, putting her inside the car. Jagjit Singh allegedly covered the victim’s mouth as Gurmit Singh threatened the prosecutor with death and drove her to Ranjit Singh’s tube well. The driver then abandoned the prosecutor after being forced to consume alcohol. Gurmit Singh stripped her and forced her to lie on a cot in the kotha facing the outside. He then raped her and threatened to murder her again. During the night, two more suspects raped her and forced her to have sexual intercourse. 

The next morning, the automobile came at the tube well, and the three accused forced her to sit in it before abandoning her at the boy’s high school in Pakhowal, near the location of her abduction. 

Her father contacted the village’s Sarpanch, Joginder Singh. A panchayat was later summoned to try to reach a settlement. No respite was offered; therefore, the prosecutrix and her father filed a complaint with the police station. She was transported to a primary health center for a medical evaluation. She was examined by lady doctor Dr. Sukhwinder Kaur, who discovered that the prosecutrix’s hymen was lacerated with radiating tears, swollen, and uncomfortable. Her pubic hair was also discovered mated. According to her, her intercourse with the prosecutrix could be “one of the reasons for laceration which found in her hymen.” 

When the defendant was discovered, the doctor determined that both suspects were ready for intercourse, and sealed parcels containing slides of private smears, public hair, and the prosecutor’s suit were delivered to a chemical examiner. A chemical inspector’s report stated that sperm was identified on the virginal smear slides, but no spermatozoa were discovered in the prosecutor’s public hair or salwar. After the inquiry was completed, respondents were challenged and charged under sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 of the IPC. The trial court recklessly acquitted the accused, which is being challenged here.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the prosecutrix’s allegation must be certified further, or was she an honest witness under Sections 118 and 114 of the Evidence Act of 1872.?
• Was the clinical exam as proof significant to the prosecutrix’s declaration? 
• Was the case one of vengeance because of the prior hatred that existed between the prosecutrix’s father and the respondent? 
• Was the preliminary Court’s decision reasonable and well-supported in light of all of the facts presented?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The appellant claimed that the prosecutor was a minor under the age of 16, in 10th grade, and was abducted and assaulted. The three were kidnapped by a blue ambassador, who threatened their lives before being attacked twice at the request of the three convicted Ranjit, Gurmit Singh, and Bawa. The prosecutor told her mother about the incident, and her father, Trilok Singh, contacted the sarpanch, who was unable to obtain redress from the victim, prompting a police complaint. 
• She had been thoroughly checked by a female doctor, who had given her the prosecutor’s salwar, five slides of vaginal smears, and one closed pial with prosecutrix pubic hair, which had been weighed. The prosecutor’s hymn was lacerated, with fine radiate tears that were swollen and sore. [Dr. B.L. Bansal re-examined the three suspects the same day they were brought, and the doctor concluded they were fit for sexual intercourse.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• Respondents’ responses were recorded under Section 313 Cr. The P.C. come out in complete denial of the claims against the prosecutors. First, Jagjit Singh stated that it was a bogus case and that he was dragged into it due to animosity and the sarpanch of Pakhowal city. 
• There were rumors that he married a Canadian woman in the Gurudwara region who was unpopular with the sarpanch, and as a result, he had no friendship with her and was imprisoned for his infidelity. Gurmit Singh’s response claimed that he was wrongfully impaled because of tensions between his father and Trilok Singh, the prosecutor’s father. He stated that there was a civil case pending between the father and the prosecutor’s father, and their families were not on good terms.

JUDGMENT

After examining all of the arguments, the Supreme Court determined that the original court’s disagreements were not sensitive to humanity. Justices Anand, A.S. (J) and Ahmad Saghir S. (J) stated that the reasons why the first court accepted the case were insufficient, citing the situation in which one of the weaker pupils was intimidated and unable to handle it. In light of the issues before the Court, it appears that the prosecutor was a reliable witness, and the Court ruled that the victim’s testimony in such circumstances is significant unless there are compelling reasons to support the statement. The Court will rule only on the evidence if it is judged to be reliable.

CONCLUSION

The Court reprimanded the respondents for violating sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after considering all evidence that the prosecutrix was cautious and the case had passed the point of reasonable uncertainty for them. Because the wrongdoing occurred when the respondents were 21-24 years old and possibly married, IPC was sentenced to five years in prison and fined Rs.5000/- each, as well as one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 of IPC. 

However, no separate terms were imposed under Sections 366/368 of the IPC, and in the event that the penalty was not paid, they were sentenced to one year of harsh imprisonment under Section 376. The Court did not compensate the victim’s family since a punishment was imposed, but no compensation program was in place. 

Justice is late. Justice is denied, a line that has haunted the prosecutor (name withheld) for eight years. Few of the 4 lakh outstanding cases have entered the media, while millions who are not even registered as a result of the legal system’s demise have gone unnoticed.
In the case of The State of Punjab versus Gurmit Singh & Ors., the victim, who was under 16 years old at the time of the trial, was forced to recount her side of the story in public, which may have harmed her as a kid, as soft as she was, and irreversibly damaged her. The high court recognized that the lower courts had mishandled the case and should have been more empathetic in dealing with the victim of a sexual offense. 

They determined that the rapist not only violated the victim’s privacy but also caused substantial harm to his or her psychological well-being, which was only strengthened by the Court, which ruled that the victim’s testimony could be taken as a cornerstone even if he or she could not prove it.