In SPS Rathore vs. CBI & Ors., the Supreme Court has dealt with three important questions of law in respect of ingredients of Section 354 IPC, admissibility of former statements u/s 157 Evidence Act and evidentiary value of expert opinion by a handwriting expert.
The upholding of conviction of former DGP of Haryana SPS Rathore in Ruchika Girhotra molestation case, though his sentence was reduced from one and half years to the sentence already served.
Mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient to attract Section 354 IPC The court observed that in order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object.
“There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty,” the Bench observed.
The court also observed that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending, thereby, to outrage her modesty.
The court also said intention and knowledge and the being state of mind might not be proved by direct evidence and might have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case.
Statements made to person authorised by state govt to investigate the matter admissible u/s 157 Evidence Act With regard to admissibility of former statements under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, the court said the said section envisages two categories of statements of witnesses, which can be used for corroboration.
“First is the statement made by a witness to any person at or about the time when the incident took place.
The second is the statement made by him to any authority legally competent to investigate the matter.
Such statements gain admissibility, no matter that it was made long after the incident.
But if the statement was made to non-authority, it loses its probative value due to lapse of time,” the Bench added.
The Bench further observed in the facts of the case that R.R. Singh was an authority legally competent to investigate the incident and was asked by the state government to inquire into the facts given in the memorandum and report thereon.
Observing that the statements made to him are admissible under Section 157 of Evidence Act, the court observed:
“To make a person an authority legally competent to investigate, it is not necessary that he should be having authority which flows from a statute.
It is sufficient that such person was authorised legally by the state government to investigate the matter.”
Not much weight to be given to evidence of handwriting expert The court also observed that uncorroborated evidence of a handwriting expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal and the courts should be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert.
“It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence,” the Bench added.
The Supreme Court on Friday, while upholding the conviction of former DGP of Haryana SPS Rathore in molestation case of tennis player Ruchika Girhotra, accorded relief to him by reducing his sentence from one and half years to the sentence already served.
The Bench comprising Justice V Gopal Gowda and Justice RK Agrawal stated:
“Keeping in view the aforementioned factors, especially the old age and physical condition of the appellant-accused, we do not think it expedient to put him back in jail. While we uphold the findings as to the guilt of the appellant-accused, we are of the opinion that the cause of justice would be best sub-served when the sentence of the appellant-accused would be altered to the period already undergone. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him as a special case considering his very advanced age.”
The unfortunate event took place on August 20, 1990, when a minor and budding tennis player Ruchika Girhotra was allegedly molested by Rathore, then IGP with Haryana Police and president of the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA).
She was molested in the HLTA office.
Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused after due inquiry under Sections 354 IPC at PS Panchkula, Haryana.
Rathore was convicted by a Chandigarh court in December 2009, and sent to jail in June 2010, 22 years after the occurrence of the shameful act.
The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, too. He was sentenced to 18-month rigorous imprisonment but was granted bail by the Supreme Court after serving five months of his sentence.
When the event came to light after her parents filed the FIR, Ruchika, who happened to be Rathore’s daughter’s classmate, was expelled from her school on charges of ‘indiscipline’.
Ruchika’s family alleged that they were harassed by the Haryana police in the aftermath of the incident.
The young girl committed suicide by consuming poison three years after the heinous crime on December 28, 1993.
Relying heavily on the testimony of Aradhana, Ruchika’s friend and dismissing all allegations that the accused was falsely implicated in the case because of personal rivalry, the court observed:
‘By the consistent evidence of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC. A charge under Section 354 of the IPC is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that on account of alleged enmity between the appellant and Shri Duggal and Shri Ojha, he was falsely implicated. It would, however, be unusual in a conservative society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance.’
The upholding of conviction of former DGP of Haryana SPS Rathore in Ruchika Girhotra molestation case, though his sentence was reduced from one and half years to the sentence already served.
Mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient to attract Section 354 IPC The court observed that in order to constitute the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object.
“There is no abstract conception of modesty that can apply to all cases. A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty,” the Bench observed.
The court also observed that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are
(i) that the person assaulted must be a woman;
(ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her; and
(iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending, thereby, to outrage her modesty.
The court also said intention and knowledge and the being state of mind might not be proved by direct evidence and might have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case.
Statements made to person authorised by state govt to investigate the matter admissible u/s 157 Evidence Act With regard to admissibility of former statements under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, the court said the said section envisages two categories of statements of witnesses, which can be used for corroboration.
“First is the statement made by a witness to any person at or about the time when the incident took place.
The second is the statement made by him to any authority legally competent to investigate the matter.
Such statements gain admissibility, no matter that it was made long after the incident.
But if the statement was made to non-authority, it loses its probative value due to lapse of time,” the Bench added.
The Bench further observed in the facts of the case that R.R. Singh was an authority legally competent to investigate the incident and was asked by the state government to inquire into the facts given in the memorandum and report thereon.
Observing that the statements made to him are admissible under Section 157 of Evidence Act, the court observed:
“To make a person an authority legally competent to investigate, it is not necessary that he should be having authority which flows from a statute.
It is sufficient that such person was authorised legally by the state government to investigate the matter.”
Not much weight to be given to evidence of handwriting expert The court also observed that uncorroborated evidence of a handwriting expert is an extremely weak type of evidence and the same should not be relied upon either for the conviction or for acquittal and the courts should be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert.
“It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear, direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence,” the Bench added.
The Supreme Court on Friday, while upholding the conviction of former DGP of Haryana SPS Rathore in molestation case of tennis player Ruchika Girhotra, accorded relief to him by reducing his sentence from one and half years to the sentence already served.
The Bench comprising Justice V Gopal Gowda and Justice RK Agrawal stated:
“Keeping in view the aforementioned factors, especially the old age and physical condition of the appellant-accused, we do not think it expedient to put him back in jail. While we uphold the findings as to the guilt of the appellant-accused, we are of the opinion that the cause of justice would be best sub-served when the sentence of the appellant-accused would be altered to the period already undergone. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him as a special case considering his very advanced age.”
The unfortunate event took place on August 20, 1990, when a minor and budding tennis player Ruchika Girhotra was allegedly molested by Rathore, then IGP with Haryana Police and president of the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA).
She was molested in the HLTA office.
Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused after due inquiry under Sections 354 IPC at PS Panchkula, Haryana.
Rathore was convicted by a Chandigarh court in December 2009, and sent to jail in June 2010, 22 years after the occurrence of the shameful act.
The conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, too. He was sentenced to 18-month rigorous imprisonment but was granted bail by the Supreme Court after serving five months of his sentence.
When the event came to light after her parents filed the FIR, Ruchika, who happened to be Rathore’s daughter’s classmate, was expelled from her school on charges of ‘indiscipline’.
Ruchika’s family alleged that they were harassed by the Haryana police in the aftermath of the incident.
The young girl committed suicide by consuming poison three years after the heinous crime on December 28, 1993.
Relying heavily on the testimony of Aradhana, Ruchika’s friend and dismissing all allegations that the accused was falsely implicated in the case because of personal rivalry, the court observed:
‘By the consistent evidence of Ms. Aradhana (PW-13), the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence committed by the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC. A charge under Section 354 of the IPC is one which is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. It is not that on account of alleged enmity between the appellant and Shri Duggal and Shri Ojha, he was falsely implicated. It would, however, be unusual in a conservative society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance.’
No comments:
Post a Comment