CRR No. 126 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No. 126 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Savita ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. ... A.N. Jindal, J.(Oral) Counsel for the petitioner has been seeking adjournments since March, 2009. Today again, Mr. Surinder Pal, proxy counsel has appeared and has prayed for an adjournment, but the same is declined. First of all complainant stated in so many words that on 25.8.2007, the day the alleged occurrence is shown to have taken place, it was Sunday. She further fortified her claim by stating that for working on Sunday, extra payment was made to her husband and therefore, he had not enjoyed that day as holiday. Regarding her father in law, she stated that he does not enjoy Sunday as holiday as in every week, his holiday keeps on changing as per his duty. When this explanation was given by her it clearly showed that she was referring to some occurrence which had taken place on CRR No. 126 of 2009 2 Sunday but on 25.8.2007, it was not Sunday. Similar was the statement made by Rajwanti (PW6). She also categorically stated in her cross examination that it was Sunday on that day. But the calendar shows that on 25.8.2007, it was Saturday. This all shows that the statements of these witnesses are not believable. Had the occurrence virtually taken place in such a fashion, there would have been no occasion for these ladies to forget it. It looks that the things are far away from the truth. Thus it appears that acquittal of the accused – respondent No.2 is well founded. Evidence appears to have been appreciated in right perspective. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. ( A.N. Jindal ) Judge 05.09.2011 sk.