Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus PREM SINGH

Decided
11 November 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1058 · 2008 INSC 1287
Also cited as
  • (2009) 1 SCC 420 (4 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2009 SC 1010 (3 citing judgments)
  • (2009) 1 SCC(CRI) 351 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Heard learned counsel for the appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred as to as the 'accused').

p. 1059, margin F

2

On the allegation that the respondent had sexually ravished PW- 1 and had outraged the modesty of not only P W- 1, but of several other girl students of the school where the respondent was a teacher, law was set in motion. The respondent was .further charged for commission of offences relating to threatening the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to somebody else.· The accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 37 6 , 35 4 and 50 6 of the Indian Pen al Code, 18 6 0 (in ·short . 'the.I PC') .

pp. 1059–1060, margin G

3

The learned· Addi. Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh found the accused guilty of all the offences, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprison ment for ten years', six months' and six months' respectively; In appeal, the High Court set ~side the.judgment of conviction and sentence and directed acquittal of the .respondent.

p. 1060, margin A

4

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State subrnitted that the reasons indicated by the High Court are indefensible. The High Court has treated delay in lodging the FIR in a case involving rape, to be similar to that involving other offences. Additionally, it was submitted that the evidence of PW- 1, the prosecutrix has been lightly brushed aside. - · · .

p. 1060, margin C

5

In response, learned'counsel for the respondentaccused submitted that not only there was inordinate delay in . lodging the FIR, but also, the fact that the prosecutrix claimed to have told her mother and a teacher about the alleged · incident at_the first instance and, thereafter, there was total silence of nearly two years, casts ·doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version. In any event, it is submitted, that the offence punishable under Section ~ ·-; 6 I PC is· not m·ade out.

p. 1060, margin E

6

So far as the delay in lodging the FIR question is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault; cannot be eq.uated with the case involving other·offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind ofttie prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. ln a tradition bound society prevalent in India: more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out . the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the Fl R .. In that score, learned counsel for the A appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight of this vital distinction. Additionally, we find that the prosecution has clearly established commission of offence punishable under Sections 35 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 7 6 I PC is concerned, the basic ingredients are set B out in Section 37 5 I PC. On a reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, we find that a case of rape has not been established so far as the respondent is concerned.

pp. 1060–1061, margin F

7

That being the position, we allow the appeal of the State C to the extent that the respondent is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 5 4 and 5 0 6 I PC. The sentences are two years' and six months' rigorous imprison ment respectively. It is stated that the appellant has. suffered more than that period of custody. If that being so, he need not · ' surrender to custody,. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid . D extent. D.G. Appeal partly allowed.

p. 1061