Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 Date of Decision: December 24, 2009 Sushma .......Petitioner Versus Bholu and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for the respondents. --- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 1.4.2002, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, vide which accused - respondents have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341/354/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that at about 7.30 p.m. on 8.7.1999, petitioner – Sushma wife of Manoj Kumar along with her sister- in-law (Devrani) Suman wife of Jitender was returning to their house after answering the call of nature. When they reached near the house of Ram Sarup s/o Omkar, all the accused persons came from a side and waylaid both of them. They caught hold the hand of Sushma and placed his hand on her Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 -2- breast. Accused Satbir placed his hand on her other breast with malafide intention. Accused Kalia caught hold of both hands of Suman with malafide intention, on which both of them raised alarm. On hearing the alarm, Ramotar, father-in-law of Sushma, came from behind, whereas one Ramnarain son of Chhalu came from the other side of the village. On this, all the accused fled away hurling a threat that in case the matter was reported to anybody, they shall kill them. 3. The parties made efforts to compromise the matter, but the same could not be arrived at. 4. On 14.7.1999, SI Chhajuram, Incharge, Police Post Gahali came to the village. Smt.Sushma got recorded her statement, Exhibit PW1/A, on which formal FIR, Exhibit PW1/C, was recorded by ASI Shafuddin. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and the accused were arrested. 5. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court against the accused and they were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined SI Chhajuram as PW1, Constable Chhote Lal as PW2, complainant Sushma as PW3, Smt.Suman as PW4, Ramotar as PW5 and Shri Ramnarain as PW6. PW ASI Shafuddin was given up as unnecessary and thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. 7. Statements of accused-respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they pleaded false implication and took the defence that there existed litigation and ill-will Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 -3- between the family of Sushma and Suman with the family of Shri Kishan Lal, brother of father-in-law of complainant - Sushma. They had visiting terms with Kishan Lal. On the date of occurrence, Sushma and Suman hurled abuses to them and they made a complaint to the panchayat. On this, Gram Sabha gave decision against Sushma and Suman and as a counter- blast, a false case was got registered. In defence, accused-appellants examined accused No.2-Satbir as DW1, Sumer Singh as DW2 and Amar Singh as DW3. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed. 8. The trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents after recording the finding that the stand taken by the accused could be probable and there were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses as regards the manner of occurrence coupled with the fact of un- explained delay in lodging the FIR. The learned Court while holding that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against the accused, rather the learned trial Court opined that the accused have been falsely implicated in the instant case. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. The occurrence, in the instant case, took place on 8.7.1999. The FIR was registered on 14.7.1999 when per chance SI Chhaju Ram happened to visit the village. It is not disputed that the panchayat was convened to settle the dispute. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that Sushma, PW3, or Suman, PW4, or any other member of her family took any step to approach the panchayat. In fact, as per record, the panchayat was convened at the instance of the accused. 11. Smt.Sushma, PW3, has supported the case of the prosecution to Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 -4- the extent that she along with her sister-in-law Suman was waylaid by Bholu and Kalia near the house of Ram Sarup. Accused ran away from the spot after her father-in-law Ramotar appeared on the scene. It came in her statement that effort of compromise the matter took place in the village, but, no settlement could be arrived at. However, the learned trial Court noticed that there were material contradictions in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses. 12. It has come in the statement of Ramotar, PW5, father-in-law of Sushma, that the panchayat was called at their instance, though, in fact, the panchayat was convened at the instance of the accused, whereas Sushma, PW3, denied the fact that any talks of compromise took place in the village. However, the fact remains that no effort was made by the complainant to report the matter to the police. 13. Though, the incidents reporting the matter regarding the sexual offences are never prompt on account of the fact that it brings stigma to the family of the victim, but, in the instant case, no effort was made by the complainant to report the matter to the police. The matter was discussed by the panchayat. As per the record, the panchayat was not convened at the instance of the complainant. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to explain the delay. 14. Apart from the delay, there are material contradictions in the statements of SI Chhajuram, PW1, and Smt.Sushma, PW3. As per the statement of SI Chhajuram, he reached the village at 9.00 p.m. on 14.7.1999 when Sushma approached him at about 9.30 p.m. near the bus stand of the village. She was accompanied by her father-in-law Ramotar, PW5, besides 5-7 other persons from the village. However, as per the Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 -5- statement of Sushma, her statement was recorded by the police near the house of Ram Sarup i.e. at the place of occurrence. She had specifically stated that the police had come to the village and she did not go to the bus stand. It has further come in her statement that at the time of making the statement, her sister-in-law, Smt.Suman accompanied her, but this fact is contradicted by SI Chhajuram, PW1. Even as per the statement of Smt.Suman, the police met her near the house of Ram Sarup, which was again contradicted by SI Chhajuram. As per the statement of Ramotar, PW5, father-in-law of Sushma, the police came to the village after 5-6 days of the occurrence at around noon time. He was called at the Chaupal of the village and statement of Sushma was recorded at the gate of her house. As per statement of Chhajuram, PW1, many people from the village including Attar Singh, Chiranji, Chhote Lal etc. were called, but none of them was cited as a witness. He further stated that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the eye witnesses. In the circumstances, the question arises is that when there was no eye witness of the occurrence, how he prepared the site plan, Exhibit PW1/E. As per site plan, the occurrence took place near the house of Ram Sarup son of Omkar and Niranjan Lal son of Kurda Ram, but SI Chhajuram, PW1, admitted that he did not make any enquiry from Ram Sarup or Niranjan Lal. 15. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives of the complainant, therefore, they are interested witnesses. It is to be further noted that accused Satbir Singh made a categorical statement that on 8.7.1999 when he along with Bholu and Kalia was returning from the house of Kishan Lal, then Suman and Sushma abused them for having visited the house of Kishan Lal. It is also to be noted here that there is Criminal Revision No.40 of 2004 -6- litigation and ill-will between the family of complainant-Sushma and her sister-in-law (Devrani) Suman with the family of Kishan Lal, who is real brother of Ramotar, PW5, father-in-law of Sushma. It is further stated that the panchayat was called by the accused-respondents but Sushma and Suman did not attend the same, therefore, the panchayat was again convened on 14.7.1999 in which Sarpanch of the village formed committee of five members comprised of Sumer Singh, Amar Singh Lambardar, Bahadur Panch, Mahabir Panch and Raj Kumar Lambardar to resolve the matter. It has further come in the statement that Suman and Sushma were found guilty by the panchayat and they were imposed a fine of Rs.551/-. He further stated that he made a complaint to the DSP after two days, but no action was taken on the same. 16. Sumer Singh, DW2, and Amar Singh, DW3, have supported the statement of accused Satbir Singh. 17. In this manner, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case. The statements of all the prosecution witnesses are full of material contradictions and improvements, coupled with the fact that there is an unexplained huge delay of six days in reporting the matter to the police. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order, dated 1.4.2002, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul acquitting the accused-respondents. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) December 24, 2009 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No