IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4013 of 2007 Date of Decision : March 27, 2008 Jarnail Singh A.S.I. and others ....Appellants Versus Gurbachan Kaur .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Daljit Singh Rajput, Advocate for the appellants. T.P.S. MANN, J. The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot on 6.5.2003 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot on 26.7.2000 was accepted and her suit for recovery was granted for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- by way of damages/compensation. The respondent had initially filed the suit for recovery of Rs. Three lacs by way of damages against the appellants for the reasons that on account of their action, she suffered mental torture and her dignity, being wife of an Army personnel, was undermined in the society, friends and relatives. According to her, she was physically lifted by defendant No.1 at the instance of other defendants from her house and taken to the police Chowki in Regular Second Appeal No. 4013 of 2007 -2- a jeep bearing registration No. PBF-675. She was given fist blows by Jarnail Singh, ASI, who at the relevant time, was posted in Police Chowki, Sohangarh, Rattewala, Tehsil Guru Harsahai, District Ferozepur. She was kept in the police Chowki for two nights, where he even raped her. She was then shifted to Police Station, Guru Harsahai, where per chance, one Deputy Superintendent of Police came who asked the police officials about her presence. He learnt that no case was registered against her and she was, accordingly, allowed to go home. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff had put up a fabricated story. The suit for recovery was dismissed by learned trial Court, but the appeal of the plaintiff was accepted and her suit decreed for payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation. Hence, the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent had also filed a criminal complaint on the same and similar facts against them but vide judgment dated 17.12.1997, learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot held that the evidence led by the complainant did not inspire confidence and none of the charges stood proved. Accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 376, 366, 448, 451 and 120-B IPC. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellants challenging the grant of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the respondent by way of damages/compensation be accepted. In a criminal case, the duty is always cast upon the prosecution/ complainant to prove its/her case. For any lacuna or legal infirmity in the Regular Second Appeal No. 4013 of 2007 -3- prosecution/complainant's case, the benefit of doubt accrues to the accused. The probative effect of evidence in civil and criminal proceedings is markedly different. The same evidence which may be sufficient to regard a fact as proved in a civil suit, may be considered insufficient for a conviction in a criminal action. While in the former, a mere preponderance of probability may constitute an adequate basis of decision, in the latter, a far higher degree of assurance and judicial certitude is a requisite for a conviction. The plaintiff had appeared before the learned trial Court as PW1 and deposed on the lines as mentioned by her in the plaint. Her evidence stood corroborated by the testimonies of her son Harpal Singh PW2 and her husband Gura Singh PW3. Telegrams Ex. P2 and P3, which were sent by the son of the plaintiff on 3.3.1993 also lend corroboration to the version of the plaintiff. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the victim of a sexual harassment/indecent assault cannot be treated as an accomplice as that would be an insult to the womanhood. Her statement has to be believed like that of an injured witness. No material has been brought on the file by the defendants from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff had any strong motive to falsely involve them. Even no evidence is available from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff was not a woman of good character or she was a woman of easy virtues. Her husband is an ex-serviceman. Her son is fully grown up. Besides, she has a married daughter as well. The substantial questions of law formulated by the appellants are Regular Second Appeal No. 4013 of 2007 -4- as follows :- 1. Whether the impugned judgment is against law and the facts of the case ? 2. Whether the learned first Appellate Court erred while giving wrong findings ? As is clear from the above discussion, the impugned judgment passed by learned lower Appellate Court is based upon the evidence and cannot be said to be against the facts of the case. Further that learned lower Appellate Court gave justification in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the lower trial Court and in decreeing the suit of the respondent for the grant of Rs. 1,10,000/- to her by way of damages/compensation. As such, no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants, arise for determination. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is consequently, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 27, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO