-1- Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 12, 2010. Laxman ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Laxman was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code (for short -2- Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2003. `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the former offence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the latter offence. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. I have heard Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered against the accused- petitioner on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix (name withheld) made by her before the police on 17.7.1998 at about 8 A.M when she was admitted in the General Hospital, Narnaul, as a suspected case of poisoning. The prosecutrix stated that she had left her studies two years back after failing in 8th standard. On 16.7.1998, she was all alone at her house. At about 9 A.M on that day, accused-petitioner Laxman, who was her neighbour, came to her house to take `Lassi'. When she handed over the jug of `Lassi' to him, he caught hold of her hand to outrage he modesty and tried to close the door. On this, the prosecutrix ran out of the house. The appellant fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix told about the occurrence to her `Mausi' (mother's sister) Bhagoti. Smt.Bhagoti told the prosecutrix that the appellant had run away from the village just then. The -3- Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2003. prosecutrix thereafter took the bottle of Aldrine (a variety of pesticide) from her house and went to the house of the accused. The accused was not found present in his house. The prosecutrix then consumed the Aldrine and broke the bottle containing the remaining Aldrine. She fell down unconscious and was taken to hospital by her mother. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecutrix appeared as P.W.1, her aunt Bhagoti as P.W.2 and her mother Lalli as P.W.4. The accused-petitioner, except pleading false implication simpliciter in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not lead any evidence in defence. The prosecutrix, Smt.Bhagoti (P.W.2) and Smt. Lalli (P.W.2) have fully supported the prosecution case. They had no enmity to falsely implicate the accused in such a case where prestige and honour of the family of the prosecutrix, who was an unmarried girl, was involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner, except arguing that there was delay in lodging the report with the police, could not seriously challenge the prosecution case. No doubt, there is delay in lodging the report with the police, but the same has not remained unexplained on record. As mentioned above, the prosecutrix had consumed a pesticide after the occurrence on 16.7.1998 and had to be got admitted in hospital. On that very day, Assistant Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar (P.W.5) had gone to the hospital after receiving a `ruqa' from the Doctor about the admission of the prosecutrix in the hospital. However, the prosecutrix was declared unfit to make statement. She was declared fit to make statement on the next day i.e -4- Criminal Revision No.1835 of 2003. 17.7.1998 at about 8 A.M. Her statement was recorded at that time. There was, thus, no delay in reporting the matter to the police. The delay, if any, stands explained on record. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. March 12, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE