PREM KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                 [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1095


                        PREM KAUR                                 A
                               v.
              STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1364 of 2008)
                       APRIL 25, 2013
                                                                  B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
               IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     PENAL CODE, 1860:
                                                                  c
      ss. 376, 363, 148, 323, 149, 342 and 506 - Accused
 persons including father and son stated to have beaten,
 raped and tortured a labourer - Acquittal by trial court, affirmed
 by High Court - Held: A judgment must show proper
 application of mind by Presiding Officer of the court, that there 0
 was proper evaluation of all the evidence on record, and that
 the conclusion is based on appreciation/ evaluation of
 evidence - Every court is duty bound to state reasons for its
 conclusions - In the instant case, trial court did not decide the
 case giving adherence to provisions of s. 354 CrPC - It did E
 not record any sound reasoning for acquittal, though it had
 been the case of prosecutrix that she remained hospitalized
 - She had deposed in court that she had been subjected to
 the crime stated - High Court was also swayed by reasoning
 recorded by trial court without making much effort to find out
 the truth in the case - Courts below have dealt with the matter F
 in a very summary fashion - The statements of reasons, for
 the conclusion reached by them, which could have been more
 enlightening, are missing - Judgments of courts below do not
 comply with requirement of statutory provisions as laid down
 in Cr.P. C - The view taken by courts below is manifestly G
 unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage of justice -
 Courts below ought not to have given the defective and cryptic
judgment - In fact it is no judgment in the eyes of the law -

                             1095                                 H
    1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A The Court is not in a position to judge the correctness, legality
  and propriety of findings recorded by courts below - Absence
  of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity, but a patent
  illegality - Judicial insensitiveness shown by trial court, and
  High Court is disturbing - Whether the a/legation is correct or
B not, has to be examined on the basis of the evidence on
  record and such an issue cannot be decided merely by
  observing that it is improbable - The manner in which courts
  below have dealt with the case, cannot be approved -
  Judgments of courts below are set aside and the case is
c remanded to trial court to decide afresh on the basis of the
  evidence/material on record - In light of the facts and
  circumstances of the case, trial court will hear the arguments
  advanced from both sides, and deal with each and every piece ·
  of evidence, taking into consideration the defence taken by
  the accused persons, in their respective statements uls 313
0
  Cr.P.C., and record findings, in accordance with law - Code
  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 354 - Judgments.

        CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN:

E        Sexual assault - Sensitiveness to be shown by courts
    while dealing with the case - Penal Code, 1860.

       H.B. Gandhi & Ors. v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp.
  (2) SCC 312; Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. Collector of
F Central Excise, Cochin, AIR 1994 SC 1341; Ku/deep Singh
  v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 594
    =AIR 1999 SC 677 Gaya Din & Ors. v. Hanuman Prasad &
  Ors AIR 2001 SC 386 Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi
  Administration, 1985 (1) SCR 866 = AIR 1984 SC 1805;
  Satyavir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (2) SCR 729
G = (2010) 3 SCC 174; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit
  Singh & Karam Singh, 1974 (1) SCR 328 =AIR 1973 SC
  2407; Mukhtiar Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR
  38    =
        AIR 1995 SC 686 - referred to.

H
   PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                 1097


                    Case Law Reference:                         A

    1992 Supp. (2) sec 312       referred to         para 11
    AIR 1994 SC 1341             referred to         para 12
    1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 594 referred to              para 13    B
    AIR 2001 SC 386              referred to         para 14
    1985 (1) SCR 866             referred to         para 15
    2010 (2) SCR 729             referred to         para 16
                                                                c
    1974 (1) SCR 328             referred to         para 19
    1995 (1) SCR 38              referred to         para 20
    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1364 of 2008.                                               D
    From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2006 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Revision
No. 392 of 2001.

    D.K. Thakur.Dr. V.P. Appan, D. Jha for the Appellant.       E

    V. Madhukar MG, Shivani Mahipal, Rajat Kapoor, Anis
Ahmed Khan, Anvita Cowshish, S. Rajita Mathur (for Kuldip
Singh) for the Respondents. ·

    The following order of the Court was delivered              F

                           ORDER
      1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 21.8.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 392 of       G
2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh, by way of which it has dismissed the revision
petition and affirmed the judgment and order of acquittal of
respondents-accused in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1995/2000
dated 7.6.2000 of the charges punishable under Sections 148,    H
    1098        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   323, 149, 363, 376, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
    (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC').

            2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
    that:
B      A. On 7 .2.1995, the appellant, a labourer by occupation
  was dragged by the respondents-accused into their car and
  taken to Dera Khushian Dass at village Thatha. She was beaten
  by the respondents and was forced to keep mum and sign
  certain papers. Baba Jagir Singh (now dead) raped the
C appellant. Thereafter, she was raped by respondent Nos. 3 and
  4 herein, also. The appellant was mal-treated to the extent that
  one lady at Dera, namely Sawinder Kaur put chilly powder in
  her private parts and she was detained in the room.

D         B. On 8.2.1995, appellant's husband came with several
    persons and rescued her from the Dera. She was taken to the
    Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran in unconscious state and the police
    was informed.

       C. The appellant regained consciousness only on
E 9.2.1995. Her statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector,
  Kabala Singh (PW-13) on the same day. The appellant was
  then pressurised by the respondents to compromise and they
  tried to hush up the matter and even produced a signed
  agreement of compromise. In view thereof, the police refused
F to register the FIR on 9.2.1995. It was only at the instance of
  the appellant that an FIR could be lodged on 10.2.1995 at Tarn
  Taran Police Station.

       D. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted
G against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable
   under sections referred to hereinabove, and the case was
  committed to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court vide its
  judgment and order dated 7.6.2000 acquitted all the accused
  persons on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR
H and the prosecution could not explain the same, though the
   PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                    1099


compromise deed was filed but the court could not consider it,       A
as the offences were not compoundable. The Trial Court was
swayed by the fact that the father and son cannot rape a woman
together.

    E. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Criminal
                                                                     8
Revision No. 392 of 2001 before the High Court and the same
stood dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 21.8.2006.

     Hence, this appeal.

     3. This Court was not satisfied with the judgments and          c
orders of the courts below. Since the appellant could not furnish
the copies of the statements of all the witnesses, this court vide
order dated 2.4.2013 directed the counsel appearing for the
State to file two sets of the depositions of the prosecution
witnesses and defence witnesses, if any. However, the said           D
order has not been complied with for the reasons best known
to the State authorities.

     4. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the prosecution
had failed· to explain the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as
the incident occurred on 7.2.1995, three days before the FIR         E
was lodged~ The appellant-prosecutrix herself had given a
version, furnishing complete explanation for the delay. The so-
called compromise deed was also placed on record. Appellant
had also deposed· that when she regained her consciousness,
her statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector on 9.2.1995.         F
The same had been admitted by Shri Kabala Singh (PW-13).

     5. The Trial Court took note of the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the parties upto paragraph 9, and
thereafter dealt with the entire case in just one paragraph i.e.     G
paragraph 10. In that paragraph also, the learned Trial Court,
made a passing reference to the statement of the prosecutrix,
or to those of any other witness but failed to appreciate the
same properly.

    6. The Trial Court took note of the statement of Dr.             H
    1100           SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A Tejwinder Singh (PW-1), with respect to the injuries that were
  found on. the person of the prosecutrix, which read as under:

           "1.      An abrasion 5x5 inch on the right iliac bone, radish
                    blue in colour. No fresh bleeding was seen.

B          2.       A defused swelling 3x3 inch on the head in the
                    region of right parietal bone. Underlying bone was
                    found intact. Injury was kept under observation.

           3.       An abrasion 5x5 inch on the outer side of left elbow
c                   joint.

           4.       Complaint of pain in the abdomen, injury was kept
                    under observation.

           5.       Complaint of difficulty in swallowing and speech
D                   allegedly due to attempt to strangulate. For opinion
                    of ENT specialist.

           6.       As alleged by the complairiant that she had been
                    raped, so opinion of the Gynecologistwa~ sought."
E       Dr. Karnail Kaur (PW-9), who had also examined the
    appellant observed:

           "(i)     Dirty blood stained discharge was coming out of
                    vagina.
F
           (ii)     The introitus was tender and at 6'o clock position
                    there was present a small laceration.

           (iii)    The examining fingers were stained with blood
                    stained discharge.
G
           (iv)     In my opinion I cannot rule out the possibility of
                    sexual intercourse."

      7. The Trial Court further referred to the statement of the
H Doctor (PW-9) as under:
   PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                       1101


    "Dr. Karnail Kaur {PW-9) who medically examined Prem                A
    Kaur on 9.2.95, found abrasion 5x5 cm on the outer side
    of the left iliac rest. .. the vagina of the prosecutrix admitted
    two fingers. Dirty blood stained discharge was coming out
    of the vagina."
                                                                        B
    The Trial Court acquitted all the accused giving reasons
as under:

    "There is no cogent evidence that the prosecutrix was
    raped by the accused, Baba Jagir Singh and his son Karaj
    Singh and Jagtar Singh. It is not possible that father and          C
    son will commit the rape at the same time."

                                               {Emphasis added}

     8. When the matter came up before the High Court, the
                                                                        0
High Court also did not show any sensitivity, and did not
consider the gravity of the charges levelled against the accused
persons. It was thus persuaded only by the circumstance, that
the State had not filed the appeal against the order of acquittal
pas~ed by the Trial Court. No other reasons were given by the
High Court, while dealing with the revision. F.urther, the High         E
Court had without examining any medical report, gone to the
extent of stating that the prosecutrix had no injury upon her
person whatsoever, though the finding is admittedly contrary to
the evidence on record.
                                                                        F
      9. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, but had no occasion or
opportunity to examine the evidence, as the State for the
reasons best known to it, did not ensure compliance of the order
passed by this court on 2.4.2013, nor the State had preferred           G
any appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal by
the Trial Court, nor it has rendered any assistance before this
Court. Th.us, the State authorities have taken a complete
indifferent attitude towards the appellant, for the reasons best
known to it.
                                                                        H
    1102     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A      10. The findings recorded by the courts below may be
  perverse for the reasons that the Trial Court did not record any
  sound reasoning for acquittal, though it had been the case of
  the prosecutrix that she remained hospitalised. She had
  deposed in court that she had been subjected to the aforesaid
B crime. The High Court had also been swayed by the reasoning
  recorded by the Trial Court without making much effort to find
  out the truth in the case.

       11. In H.B. Gandhi & Ors. v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992
  Supp. (2) SCC 312, this Court held that if a finding of fact is
C arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking
  into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so
  outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality
  incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is
  rendered infirm in law.
D
        12. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. Collector of Central
  Excise, Cochin, AIR 1994 SC 1341, this Court held that an
  order suffers from perversity, if relevant piece of evidence has
  not been considered or if certain inadmissible material has
E been taken into consideration or where it can be said that the
  findings of the authorities are based on no evidence at all or if
  they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have
  arrived at those findings.

         13. In Ku/deep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.,
F AIR 1999 SC 677, this Court while re-iterating the same view
    added that, if there is some evidence on record which is
    acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever,
    compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated
    as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.
G
        14. In Gaya Din & Ors. v. Hanuman Prasad & Ors., AIR
    2001 SC 386, this Court further added that an order is
    perverse, if it suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity.

         15. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, AIR
H
    PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                      1103

1984 SC 1805, the Court while dealing with a case of                    A
disciplinary proceedings against an employee considered the
issue and held as under-

     "It is equally well-settled that where a quasi-judicial tribunal
     or arbitrator records findings based on no legal evidence          B
     and the findings are either his ipse dixit or based on
     conjeQtures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the
                 I

     additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands
     vitiated ..... they disclose total non-application of mind ....
     The High Court, in our opinion, was clearly in error in
     declining to examine the contention that the findings were         C
     perverse on the short, specious and wholly untenable
     ground that the matter depends on appraisal of evidence."

    16. This Court in Satyavir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2010) 3 sec 174, held :                                                o
     "'Perverse' was stated to be behaviour which most of the
     people would take as wrong, unacceptable, unreasonable
     and a 'perverse' verdict may probably be defined as one
     that is not only against the weight of the evidence but is         E
     altogether against the evidence. Besides, a finding being
     'perverse', it could also suffer from the infirmity of distorted
     conclusions and glaring mistakes."

     17. If the judgments of the courts below are examined in
the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, the same          F
have to be lebelled as suffering from perversity.

     18. The Trial Court did not decide the case giving
adherence to the provisions of Section 354 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the                G
'Cr.P.C.'}. The said provisions provide for a particular procedure
and style to be followed while delivering a judgment in a criminal
case and such format includes a reference to the points for
determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the
decision, as pronouncing a final order without a reasoned               H
    1104     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A judgment may not be valid, having sanctity in the eyes of the
  law. The judgment must show proper application of the mind
  of the Presiding Officer of the court, and that there was proper
  evaluation of all the evidence on record, and the conclusion is
  based on such appreciation/evaluation of evidence. Thus, every
B court is duty bound to state reasons for its conclusions.

        19. In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh- & Karam
    Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407, this Court held as under:
        "A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free
C       to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns
        itself with the question as to whether the accused
        arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is
        charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product
        of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the
D       conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the
        commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence
        by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the
        animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would
        have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit
E       of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused
        the courts should not at the same time reject evidence
        which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful
        or in the nature of conjectures."

         20. In Mukhtiar Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995
F   SC 686, this Court emphasised on the compliance of the
    statutory requirement of Section 354 Cr.P.C., observing as
    under:

        " ..... same is far from satisfactory. Both, the order of
G       acquittal as well as the order of conviction, have been
        made by the trial Court in a most perfunctory manner
        without even noticing much less, considering and
        discussing the evidence led by the prosecution or the
        arguments raised at the bar. ... lt was in paragraphs 28 to
H       32, noticed above, that the orders of acquittal and
    PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                    1105


     conviction were made. The trial Court was dealing with a         A
     serious case of murder. It was expected of it to notice and
     scrutinize the evidence and after considering the
     submissions raised at the bar arrive at appropriate
     findings ..... There is no mention in the judgment as to what
     various witnesses deposed at the trial, except for the           B
     evidence of the medical witness. The judgment does not
     disclose as to what was.argued before it on behalf of the
     prosecution and the defence. The judgment is so
     infirm ..... The trial Court appears to have been
     blissfully ignorant of the requirements of Section               c
     354(i)(b) Cr. P.C. Since, the first appeal lay to this Court,
     the trial Court should have reproduced and discussed at
     least the essential parts of the evidence of the witnesses
     besides recording the submissions made at the bar to
     enable the appellate Court to know the basis on which the
                                                                      0
     'decision' is based. A 'decision' does not merely mean the
     'conclusion' - it embraces I within its fold the reasons which
     form the basis for arriving at the 'conclusions'. The judgment
     of the trial Court contains only the 'conclusions' and nothing
     more. The judgment of the trial Court cannot, therefore, be
     sustained. The case needs to be remanded to the trial
                                                                      E
     Court for its fresh disposal by writing a fresh judgment in
     accordance with law." (Emphasis added}

      21. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be laid down
that the court must give reasons for reaching its conclusions.        F
The courts below have dealt with the matter in a very summary
fashion. The statements of reasons, for the conclusion reached
 by them, which could have been more enlightening, are missing.
The judgments of the courts below·do not comply with the
requirement of the statutory provisions as laid down in Cr.P.C.       G
The view taken by the courts below is manifestly unreasonable
and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The courts ought not
to have given the defective and cryptic judgment. In fact it is no
)udgment in the eyes of the law. We are not in a position to
judge the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings         H
    1106      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A   recorded by the courts below. The absence of sound reasons
    is not a mere irregularity, but a patent illegality.

           22. We are aghast at the judicial insensitiveness shown
  by the Trial Court, and we find it no less, at the level of the High
  Court. The view taken by the Trial Court, that the father and
8
  son cannot rape a victim together, may in itself cannot be a
  ground of absolute improbability, however, it may fall within the
  realm of rarest of rare cases. Whether the allegation is correct
  or not, has to be examined on the basis of the evidence on
C record and such an issue cannot be decided merely by
  observing that it is improbable.

      23. We cannot approve the manner in which the courts
  below dealt with the case. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.
  Thus, the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the
D case is remanded to the Trial Court to decide afresh on the
  basis of the evidence/material on record.

        24. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
  Trial Court will hear the arguments advanced from both sides,
E and deal with each and every piece of evidence, taking into
  consideration the defence taken by the accused persons, in
  their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and
  record findings, in accordance with law. The case shall be
  decided by the Trial Court within a period of 3 months from the
F receipt of the certified copy of this order.

         However, before parting with the case, we make it clear
    that no observation made in this order shall be taken into
    consideration by the Trial Court, as we have expressed no
    opinion on the merits of the case.
G
    R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.