CRR No.744 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.744 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2011 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of filing revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction dated 12.6.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, and order of sentence dated 15.6.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide which petitioner was convicted under Section 377 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months as well as judgment dated 10.2.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Bhiwani, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Succinctly facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Leela lodged a complaint with the police that on 8.6.2006, around CRR No.744 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 10/11.00 a.m. his son, aged about 7-8 years was studying, as Raj Kumar son of Bharat Singh resident of village Shalewala had taken him in the ditches on the pretext of giving tofi to him adjacent to the pond, where he committed “indecent act” on him, as a result of which, his son screamed. At this Suman d/o Bhikhu Ram, Om Pati wife of Bhikhu rushed there, as nearby, they were digging earth. On seeing them, Raj Kumar decamped by taking his pent from there. Suman and Om Pati had taken his son to his house, when he returned from his work they reiterated and narrated the whole episode to him. After consulting in his brotherhood, moved the complaint for taking necessary action against the culprit. On the basis of this complaint, case was registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, victim was got medico-legally examined; petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation challan was presented against the accused/petitioner. Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused under Section 377 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as six witnesses and thereafter closed prosecution evidence. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He also examined Anita as DW1 in his defence. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused as noticed above. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. CRR No.744 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contends that prosecution has not been able to prove the offence under Section 377 IPC against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, there is delay in lodging the FIR, which casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution version. After going through the record, I find that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on the record. Though, there are minor discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses but those discrepancies/contradictions do not go to the root of the case, which prove fatal to the prosecution case in its entirety. It is well-settled principle of law that minor contradictions may occur even in the statements of the truthful witnesses. Even otherwise, on all material points the victim has supported the prosecution version. He has categorically deposed that accused/petitioner took him near the pond on the pretext of giving him chocolate and after reaching there he removed his pent and committed indecent act on his person, as a result of which blood was oozed and he felt pain. He has also identified the accused/petitioner in the Court. There is nothing on record as to why the statement of victim regarding sodomy is to be disbelieved particularly when his statement is corroborated by medical evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing on record the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, has stated that no semen was found, therefore, accused cannot be held guilty of intercourse. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if semen is not found, however, MLR suggests mark of injury on CRR No.744 of 2011 (O&M) -4- the person of the victim and victim has supported the prosecution story and there is nothing on record to suggest why out of enmity a child of eight years has made wrong statement before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error or law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Courts below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is ample evidence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused. I am afraid that while exercising my revisional jurisdiction, I can re-appreciate the evidence. This is not a case where an important piece of evidence was left by the trial Court while deciding the case. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge May 06, 2011 R.S.