High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRA-S/2557/2010allowed

Navtej Singh v. State Of Punjab

2024-10-2211 pages

"#$% &'

' ( #$#)$* "#$%'

' (

+!, -.$/0 '''11 22+$, ,+, #4)$-+5 ''' 1#$"

$, % 6 7

amicus curiae

######

%$ &' (&$&

+, - $./ $& &0 (&&.

%/% %// %1/ ,

2 $'/&

3,24

6 &1

%/% %// %1/ ,2 )

%&&&89

7 9 ( )

$& &0 (&&. ) :

5 ) $( ; &' &0 (&&.

!< = >

9 ; ! +,

supra

? 6 ) $$ &0 (&&.

? !

%1/ ,2 ?

5 9

6 =

)

$1% 2 2

$.1%

32 2 4

% ?

%/% %// %1/ ,2

)

, !

6 &1 5 ?

%$% 2 2

: 5

6 &@ 5

)

@ A

inter alia,

; ! ) !

5 5 5 ;

! ?

BC9 $ D6 E "!

D E 5 ! F

! $( &' $..( !

! +

( D

6 B B "

C9@

! ; ")

#$%

""" &$%'&%

( $%

)" (( $*

! "

!) 5

! "

5 )

3 7 / :

! ) ?

) ! E B ! $0 &/

)

! 5

F -

6 ) 5

) ?

) ! ) "

B E

+& #'

,, -" + 5 E :G!

.! /%* 0! $%

; 12 !

,- ( < B B<

5 "16....The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue..." ) 6

) 5

A +

D6 E "!

D E BC$ 5

! $( &' $..( '

)

! !

5 )

5 DE :5

? DE

ipse dixit ! ) !

!) !

! '

)

5) 5

) ! 5

! !< ! ) 6 5 6 ?

5 96 !5

< 5 )

5 :5 5 C$

D6 9$ D6 90

< 9/ < 9$& :5 !> ) 5 ) BC@ -

:5 + D6

)

5 6

) 6 5 ) ! 5 E :4!

$$%3

"", ,) < B<

5 ! "31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the Appellant guilty of the said offences. Indeed there are several significant variations in material facts in her Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement (Criminal Procedure Code), FIR and deposition in Court." $& + 5 ! :4!

!*' *%

"- " < +<< ,!

5 "15. In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.

The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross3examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co3 relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him.

Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

$$ ? ! 5 sine qua non

%10 ,2 C .&

) 5

)

C < !

C "

$( + !

) 5 5 E

:4!

45%!!'4%

5 "7. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is

improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter."

7 $% , 5 !

5 > ) "

%$ &' (&$&

$@ ?

! 8 ) !

)

? : A

2 )

Amicus Curiae

> (( $& (&(@

vishnu C <8 H8- C !

H8-