IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Binder Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Crl. Revision No.2463 of 2011 Accused / revisionist has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing order dated 10.06.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh, as well as, order dated 08.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby accused/revisionist has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Brief facts of the present case are that on 05.11.2005, complainant Sarbjit Kaur lodged a report with the police that on 03.01.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., when she was going to her field for giving meal to her servant Gora Singh, the petitioner came from the opposite side and when he reached near her, he asked about her health and grappled her. He also moved his hand on her breast and insulted her. On hearing hue and cry, Gurjant Singh reached the spot, but the accused-petitioner had managed to escape from the spot giving threat of dire consequences. The complainant narrated entire occurrence to her husband, who did not allow her to give information to the police due to humiliation and instead reported the matter to the Panchayat of the village. When the compromise could not be effected, the matter was reported to the police. On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence 2 Crl. Revision No.2463 of 2011 was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded; accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. After framing of charge, the prosecution examined three witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the prosecution version and pleaded false implication. The petitioner examined four witnesses in his defence. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as noticed above. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is a delay of about 10 months in lodging the FIR and the story of alleged molestation is an afterthought and in fact, no such incident took place. He has further argued that the members of the panchayat to whom the alleged incident was narrated by the prosecutrix have not supported the version of the prosecutrix and as such, the accused-petitioner is liable to be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. 3 Crl. Revision No.2463 of 2011 Complainant – Sarbjit Kaur, while appearing the witness box, has categorically deposed that Binder Singh – petitioner grappled her and moved his hand on her breast and her cloths were torn and on raising hue and cry, Gurjant Singh was attracted to the spot and on seeing this, the accused-petitioner ran away from the spot. Her statement is corroborated by Gurjant Singh PW2. No doubt, there are some minor discrepancies in the statements of these two material witnesses, but they are bound to occur with the passage of time and in fact, these discrepancies are so minor which are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, putting of hand on the breast of a woman by itself indicate that the accused was using criminal force within the meaning of Section 354 IPC for the purpose of committing an offence, injury or annoyance. To prove the charge under Section 354 IPC, there must be used of criminal force with intention and knowledge of outrage modesty of woman. In this case, complainant has categorically deposed that Binder Singh – petitioner has put his hand on her breast and tried to outrage her modesty. Both the learned Courts below have rightly held the accused-petitioner guilty for committing an offence under Section 354 IPC and there is no justification to 4 Crl. Revision No.2463 of 2011 interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 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 5 Crl. Revision No.2463 of 2011 Trial Court while deciding the case. Thus, the present petition is, dismissed on merits. October 13, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 6