It is a judgment that deals with rape committed 11 years back before 2020, and
states whether corroborative evidence is an essential part of legal credence as
expressed in Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Act was authorized in
1872 to sift through the ambiguities during the time spent securing proof and
attempted to discover measures to lay the foundation for enactment adequately.
The case is broadly recognized and analyzed by the evidence act 1872 and section
118 and the IPC sections 363, 366, 368 and 376. This case highlights the
important differences regarding the required evidence and credibility that need
to be provided for rape victims. They carry a heavy burden when they try to
defend the accused with rape charges and should therefore, this Court, aware of
its responsibility explain that the courts often make a mistake by constantly
asking too many questions about the incident to the victim.
The fact that she has seen that this is often used to demean the victim and
humiliate her is a joy in judgment, and it serves as a steppingstone to the
fight for women's rights. Therefore, this explains the importance and well-being
of the rape victim.
The case is an appeal in the Supreme Court of India under Section 14 of the
Terrorist Affected Areas (special courts) Act,1984.
In this case, the respondents are acquitted of rape and the charge of abduction
of a minor girl. In this appeal, the corroboration of the prosecutrix’ statement
was questioned, and a new light is elucidated in the judgement through the lack
of sensitivity of the trial court of India.
Background Of Study Crime Against Women
Over the past few decades, crime rates have skyrocketed. This is the reason why
Parliament has passed the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) to
make the laws stronger and the rape case more real. Subsequently, sections 375
and 376 Amendment Act and provided that several provisions were made to punish
those who abused or abused their women even if they were under their care or
The law of evidence also played an important role in this amendment as it was
complied with and was used to strengthen the evidence and prove the claims.
Section 114A was also added to the Evidence Act to give a clear idea of the
absence of a permit for certain prosecutions for rape.
To facilitate, amendment, Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which
deals with the right to an accused in an open trial) was also amended by the
addition of Sections 2 and 3 after the replacement of the old section numbers as
Subsections (1). Sections 2 and 3 of Section 327 Cr. P.C.
Brief Facts Of The Case
The prosecutrix was a young girl under the age of 16 who was in 10th grade at
the relevant time. On 30th March 1984, she was on his way to her maternal
uncle’s house, and when she had traveled about [100 km]. from the school, a car
driven by a Sikh youth aged 20/25 years came from behind.
The car contained all
the suspects - Gurmit Singh, Jagjit Singh Bawa, and Ranjit Singh (the accused)
were siting. A car stopped near her and Ranjit Singh got out of the car and
grabbed the prosecutor and put her inside the car. Jagjit Singh allegedly put
his hand over the victim's mouth while Gurmit Singh threatened the prosecutor
with death and drove her to the tube well owned by Ranjit Singh's. The driver
then left the prosecutor after leaving them when the prosecutor was forced to
Gurmit Singh stripped her she was made a lie on a cot in the kotha against the
outside. He then raped her after threatening to kill her again. Two other
suspects then raped her and subjected her to sexual intercourse once again
during the night.
The next morning the car arrived at the tube well and the three accused made her
sit in that car and left her near the boy’s high school, Pakhowal near the place
where she was abducted.
Her father contacted the Sarpanch Joginder Singh of the village and a panchayat
was later convened where it tried to affect a compromise.
No relief was given and the prosecutrix along with her father proceeded to file
a complaint with the police station where she was taken to a primary health
center in or medical examination She was medically examined by lady doctor Dr.
Sukhwinder Kaurwho found that the hymen of the prosecutrix was lacerated with
radiate tears, swollen and painful. Her pubic hair was also found mated.
According to her intercourse with the prosecutrix could be “one of the reasons
for laceration which found in her hymen”.
After the prosecutor took her test, she told the whole story to her mother, (Dr.
Gurdev Kaur, and her father Trilok Singh were not in the house at the time.)
However, when she returned in the evening, she told the story to her husband.
He also provided police with a sample containing prosecutrix salwar and 5 slides
of female genital smears and one closed vial containing prosecutrix pubic hair
as evidence under The Evidence Act.
When the defendant was found the doctor indicated that both suspects were ready
to have sex and the sealed parcels containing slides of private smears, public
hair, and the prosecutor's salwar, were sent to a chemical examiner. A chemical
inspector's report revealed that sperm were found on the virginal smear slides
although no spermatozoa were found in the public hair or in the prosecutor's
salwar. Upon completion of the investigation, respondents were challenged and
charged under sections 363, 366, 368, and 376 IPC.
The trial court carelessly acquitted the accused which is under challenge here.
Issues Of The Case
- Whether the assertion of the prosecutrix must be certified further, or
was she an honest witness under Section 118 and 114 of Evidence Act, 1872
- Whether the clinical assessment as proof was significant to the
declaration of the prosecutrix?
- Whether the case was one of vengeance due to the prior hostility that
emerged between the father of the prosecutrix and respondent?
- Whether the judgement of the preliminary Court was reasonable and
well-substantiated considering all the evidence presented?
A Bench comprising 2 judges analyzed the issues as mentioned above in the light
of the opponent disputes.
Arguments From The Appellant Side
Appellant argued that the prosecutor was a minor under the age of 16, was in
10th class and was abducted and assaulted. The three were kidnapped by a blue
ambassador and threatened with his life and then twice attacked at the
instigation of the three convicted Ranjit, Gurmit Singh and Bawa. The prosecutor
recounted the entire incident to her mother, and her father, Trilok Singh,
contacted the sarpanch who did not find relief from the victim, which led to a
She had been severely examined by a female doctor who had
given the prosecutor's salwar and five slides of vaginal smears and one closed
pial with prosecutrix pubic hair which was found to be weighed and the
prosecutor's hymn was a lacerated with fine radiate tears swollen and painful. [
Dr. B.L. Bansal re-examined the three suspects on the same day after they were
presented, and the doctor suggested they were deemed fit for sexual intercourse.
A chemical inspector's report indicated that sperm were found on the sides of
the prosecutor's genitals. The female specialist had fixed the speculum of the
vagina by taking swabs on the back of the vaginal fornix of the prosecutrix to
prepare the slides and as the width of the speculum was around two fingers the
chances that the prosecutor had arranged sex would not be ruled out.
prosecutor testified that he was taken by bus to Pakhowal Adda on a meter road
which could raise an alarm as it was being threatened and it was the
investigator's job to find the driver as he passed from there. The panchayats of
both villages have also been linked with a view to resolving the issue. The fact
that she was a young girl and bound by the rules of the community and her
family's reputation in the community would not be public and she would report
the incident to any outsider who was the main basis for the prosecutor to go to
Arguments From The Respondent Side
Respondents in their response their statements were recorded under section 313
Cr. The P.C where they spoke out in total denial of the allegations the
prosecutors were facing. First Jagjit Singh pointed out that it was a false
case, and he was forced into it because of hostility and the sarpanch of the
There were allegations that he had married a Canadian woman in
the Gurudwara area that was not popular with the sarpanch and as a result, he
had no friendship with her and was therefore imprisoned for his unfaithfulness.
Gurmit Singh's respondent responded that he had been falsely impaled because of
hostilities between his father and Trilok Singh, the father of the prosecutor.
He said there was a civil case going on between the father and the prosecutor's
father and their families were not on good terms.
Therefore, he was forced to be
beaten by Trilok Singh for reasons of doubt that he may have made a few people
arrest his daughter and nephew the next day and promised to beat Trilok Singh
again. Ranjit Singh's respondent said he had been found guilty of misconduct but
did not give reasons for his repression. Jagjit Singh nicknamed Bawa produced
Kuldeep Singh and Amarjit Singh defending and providing proof that a copy of his
passport and marriage certificate with a Canadian girl also provided
photographic evidence of C&D evidence in his marriage to a Canadian girl.
However, the other defendant did not have any evidence against him.
The case can be interpreted through the following provisos:
View Of The Court
- Section 118 of The Evidence Act 1872:
All persons shall be competent
to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding
the question put to them, or from giving a rational answer to those questions,
by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body and mind or any other
cause of the same kind.
- 363 IPC:
Whoever abducts any individual from [India] or from
legitimate guardianship, will be rebuffed with the detainment of one or the
other portrayal for a term which may stretch out to seven years, and will
likewise be obligated to fine.
- 366 IPC:
Whoever kidnaps or forces a woman to manipulate her marriage,
etc. shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of ten years and shall be
liable to fine anyone who induces a woman to leave any place in order to be able
to do so or to know that she is likely to be coerced or seduced into sexual
intercourse with another male, shall be punished as mentioned above.
- 368 IPC:
Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or
abducted person- Whoever, realizing that any individual has been captured or has
been abducted, illegitimately covers or limits such individual, will be rebuffed
in a similar way as though he had hijacked or kidnapped such individual with a
similar goal or information, or for a similar reason as that with or for which
he disguises or confines such individual in confinement.
- 376 IPC:
Punishment for rape submits assault will be rebuffed with the
detainment for a term which will not be under seven years however which might be
forever or for a term which may reach out to ten years and will likewise be
obligated to fine except if the women assaulted is his own wife and is not under
twelve years old. In these cases, he will be rebuffed with the detainment for a
term which may stretch out to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that
the Court may, for satisfactory and uncommon motivations to be referenced in the
judgment, force a sentence of detainment for a term of fewer than seven-year.
The Supreme Court ruled that the disagreements raised by the original court
failed to be sensitive to humanity after considering them all. Justice Anand,
A.S. (J) and Ahmad Saghir S. (J) said that the reasons why the first court
accepted the case were insufficient and considered the situation in which one of
the weaker students was threatened and could not control it.
In view of the
problems facing the Court, it turns out that the prosecutor was a credible
witness and the Court held that the victim's testimony in such cases is
important and unless there are necessary reasons to substantiate the statement.
The Court will rule on the evidence alone as it is found to be reliable.
Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain
Ahmad, J held that the victim was a criminal and that the evidence did not prove
that the evidence was invalid. He or she is eligible under Section 118 of
applicable law, and his or her evidence must be commuted to the extent of
physical violence. If the Court considers this to be of paramount importance,
then they may deal well with the prosecutor's evidence, and in terms of section
114, they may consider the evidence in the event of any doubt as to the validity
of the statement. However, when he or she grows up, they can add to his or her
testimony without falsely accusing the accused.
The Court looked into other issues and found that the medical examination had
led to the full confirmation of the victim's evidence explaining the original
State of Gujarat v. Ramesh Chandra Ramabhai Panchal
Despite the stipulation as mentioned above, the two-finger test prompting the
development of the clinical assessment with respect to assent permits the past
sexual history of the victim to bias her declaration. The test itself is one of
the most informal techniques for assessment utilized with regards to rape and
has no scientific worth. Regardless of whether a survivor is acclimated to sex
preceding the attack makes little difference to whether she agreed when the
Area 155 of the Indian Evidence Act does not permit an assault
casualty’s believability to be settled on the ground that she is “of for the
most part immoral character.” and even the prosecutrix had been doubted and
named as a young lady of ‘loose character” and ‘such sort of young lady’ by the
Ongoing controversy led the Court to declare that there was no evidence that
there had been a dispute between the two parties as no father could commit such
an immoral act against the dignity of his own daughter. The trial court ignored
or distorted all the relevant evidence that led the high court to conclude that
all the evidence was in favor of the prosecutor and that he was under the age of
sixteen years as a result of his birth certificate and the testimony of his
Overview Of The Jugdement
The Court reproved keeping all proof into account that the prosecutrix was
careful and the case was past sensible uncertainty for the respondents, so the
Court rebuked them under infringement of area 363,366,368 and 376 of the Indian
Penal code, 1860. As the wrongdoing occurred when the respondents were 21-24
years and maybe hitched after, under all the conceivable outcomes that were
thought of under Section 376, IPC was condemned to five years of confinement and
penalized by Rs.5000/- each with 1-year rigorous imprisonment for Section 363
of IPC as well.
However, were given no different sentences under Section 366/368 IPC and in default of non-payment of the penalty was further sentenced 1-year
rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. The Court did not reward the family
of the victim with any compensation as there was a penalty imposed with no
scheme for compensation.
Justice is late Justice is denied, a line that has been ringing in the mind of
the prosecutor (name withheld) for 8 long years. Not many 4 lakh unresolved
cases have reached the media and have never been highlighted by millions who are
not even registered due to the end of the legal system.
In the case of The State
of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors
. the victim, who was under 16 years of age at
the start of the trial, had to put up with telling her side of the story in
public, which could have hurt her as a minor, as soft as her, and irreparably
damaged her. The high court knew that the lower courts had not handled the case
properly and should have been more compassionate in dealing with the victim of a
They held that the rapist not only tarnished the victim's privacy
but also inflicted serious damage to his or her psychological well-being, which
was only reinforced by the Court where the victim's evidence could be considered
as a cornerstone even if he or she could not prove it.
- State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash KewalchanjainMANU/SC/O122/1990:1990CriLJ889
- Women’s Forum v. Union of India MANU/SC/0519/1995: (1995)1 SCC14
- State of Gujarat v. Rameshchandra Ramabhai Panchal R/CRA/122/1996
- The Evidence Act 1872, s 118
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 363
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 366
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 368
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 376
- Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain MANU/SC/0I22/1990:1990CriLJ889
- HC rules: Rape Victim’s Two Finger Test is violative of her Right to Privacy
Written By: Ritu Tiwari
- Women’s forum v. union of India MANU/SC/0519: (1995)1SCC14.
- State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh www.indiankanoon.org
- Terrorist affected areas Act (special court), 1984, s 14- Which provides
that an appeal is a matter of right of any judgement, sentence or order that
is not an interlocutory order of a Special Court.
- United World of School, Karnavati University