‘No self-respecting woman would claim rape unless it occurred’: Punjab High Court

On the accused’s argument regarding absence of corroboration, the Bench observed, “…the offence of rape is committed within the four walls of the room and away from public gaze, and there cannot be any witness to such offence. Had there been any witness, the accused would not have dared to commit the offence. Such offences are not committed at public places…”

A trial court in Punjab’s Hoshiarpur had sentenced Singh to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 for allegedly raping his disciple’s daughter in the early hours of November 26, 2000, after calling her to his room at the Dera. A month later, she disclosed the matter to her father, and Singh was booked by the Jalandhar police.

Justice Kumari also referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab versus Gurmit Singh, stating that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and that her solitary testimony can be relied upon.

After considering the Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held, “Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the victim, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable enough, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the victim.”

The High Court passed the order while deciding three related cases–Dhanwant Singh’s appeal against his conviction, the victim’s plea seeking enhancement of sentence and her petition seeking compensation.

Appearing for Dhanwant Singh, his counsel Tejinnderbir Singh assailed the trial court findings, mainly on the delay in registration of the First Information Report (FIR), the defence counsel submitted that “The alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 25/26 November, 2000, whereas victims father filed complaint on August 3, 2002, and that the trial Court wrongly believed the prosecution version that victim’s father had filed a complaint before Sri Akal Takht Sahib, the highest religious body of the Sikhs, whereas no complaint has been proved on record allegedly submitted to the Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht. The basis on which enquiry was conducted has also remained unexplained.”

Singh submitted that, “The testimony of the victim is not reliable, as it is not corroborated by any other evidence. It is unbelievable that she did not report the matter to her parents immediately after the occurrence and informed her father only on December 31, 2000.”

Religious leader denies rape charges

Dhanwant Singh’s counsel argued that had the accused committed the alleged offence, the victim could have reported the matter immediately to other girls in the dera, and that had she raised an alarm or knocked on the door, it would have attracted other inmates or residents. It also pointed out that there was no witness from the dera to prove the alleged offence.

The defence further alleged that Singh had been falsely implicated because trustees of the deral had allegedly embezzled Rs 30 lakh from Trust funds, and a complaint regarding forgery of an agreement to sell was done, and that only to save themselves from allegations of forgery of the agreement to sell and criminal breach of trust concerning donations collected from the public, the accused (Singh) had been falsely implicated.

It further submitted that Dhanwant Singh was declared ‘Tankhaia’ (the person on whom religious punishment is imposed) by Akal Takht Sahib on complaints alleging ‘manmatti’ (who indulges in worldly immoral pleasures and seeks worldly pleasures which are otherwise forbidden in religion) and consumption of liquor and meat and that there was no allegation that he had indulged in immoral or unethical activities or was guilty of rape.

‘A victim of a conspiracy’

The defence alleged that Dhanwant Singh was a victim of a conspiracy hatched by the trustees and that the victim’s father had been used to falsely implicate him.

The defence counsel thus prayed for acquittal of the accused by setting aside the judgment and order of sentence.

The State counsel, Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab, along with advocates Navkiran Singh and Harmeet Singh appearing for the victim, relied upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

State counsel, along with Advocates Navkiran Singh and Harmeet Singh, appearing on behalf of the victim, relied upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined before the trial court and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal by submitting that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

Victim seeks modification of sentence

The victim’s counsel also submitted that the sentence of 10 years was on the lower side and that the accused deserved life imprisonment and sought modification of the sentence accordingly.

He further submitted that no compensation had been awarded to the victim by the trial court and prayed for adequate compensation for the stress, trauma and emotional turmoil she suffered due to the commission of the offence and her long quest for justice.

The bench observed that the victim had gone to the Dera of the godman on November 25, 2000, at the instance of her father, where her mother was already present. The allegations were that the accused called her to his room in the intervening night and committed rape upon her. She left the Dera the next morning without disclosing the incident, and told her father about it only on December 31, 2000.

‘Court shouldn’t be swayed by minor contradictions’

The bench observed that while dealing with allegations of rape, the court is required to scrutinise the evidence with sensitivity, examine the broader probabilities and not be swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies.

The High Court noted that the victim was 20 years old at the time of the commission of the offence and that her father had no reason to ask his younger daughter to level an allegation of rape against the accused merely because the accused had some financial dispute with other trustees. “No major discrepancy has been pointed out by the defence counsel in the statement of the victim or of father…’,” the Bench observed.

It further said the inherent bashfulness of a female and tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression was the reason for the late reporting of the matter to her father. It held that in such an eventuality there was no necessity to look for corroboration of her statement.

The Bench said, “In case the corroboration to the testimony of the victim of sexual offence is required, in that eventuality, there cannot be any conviction of the accused for sexual assault. The court can and should convict the accused where testimony of the victim of sexual assault inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.”

‘Adding insult to injury of victim’

It further said, “By arguing that there is no corroboration to the testimony of the victim will be adding an insult to the injury already inflicted upon the body and soul of the victim”.

The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, dismissing Dhanwant Singh’s appeal as being without merit.

On enhancement of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment, the High Court observed, “Eradication of criminal activity is an essential function of the state. Imposition of adequate sentence is required to stem out the crime from society. Certainty of sentence is more important than severity of sentence to curb the crime.”

The court consequently declined the prayer for life imprisonment and dismissed the victim’s appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

The High Court observed that the victim had suffered trauma of sexual assault from the accused and thereafter a long quest for justice. It awarded her Rs 6 lakh as compensation, referring to the Supreme Court judgment.