IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-266-MA of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 27.07.2011 Darshna .... APPLICANT Versus Dinesh and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Raminder Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the applicant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Darshna, the prosecutrix, has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 27.10.2010, passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby accused Dinesh (respondent No.1 herein) has been acquitted of the charge framed against him. In this case, respondent No.1 Dinesh was tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, under Sections 376/511 and 451 IPC. The prosecution against him was launched on a written complaint given by the prosecutrix to the police on 14.1.2010. She alleged that on 13.1.2010, in the night, her father-in-law Hoshiar Singh and children were sleeping in a separate room and she was sleeping alone in a separate room, as her husband, who was in the Police Department, had gone to Kurukshetra. The Crl. Misc. No. A-266-MA of 2011 -2- light of her room was on and at 1.00 AM (night), the door of her room was opened, upon which she woke up. She found respondent No.1-accused (her neighbour) and one Amit son of Randhir, who used to come and meet respondent No.1, in her room. She further alleged that Amit came forward and caught her hand with one hand and with the other hand, he closed her mouth, whereas respondent No.1-accused removed the quilt, broke open the string of her salwar, fell upon her and attempted to commit rape. She managed to remove the hand and shouted for help, which attracted her father-in-law and he came inside the room. On seeing him, both the accused ran away. During investigation, the allegations against Amit were found to be incorrect, the challan was filed only against respondent No.1-accused and he was charge sheeted, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom PW.4 Darshna (the prosecutrix) and PW.5 Hoshiar Singh (father-in-law of the prosecutrix) are the material witnesses, and the remaining witnesses are the formal witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1- accused denied all the allegations appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. He stated that Dharambir (younger brother of the husband of the prosecutrix) had caused injuries to Amit, who was a friend of his brother, regarding which a case was registered. He further Crl. Misc. No. A-266-MA of 2011 -3- stated that the complainant and her husband, who was serving in the police department, pressurised Amit to compromise the matter, but he did not agree and thereafter, this false case was registered to pressurise him. The trial court, after considering the evidence and the documents available on the record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, by giving benefit of doubt, respondent No.1-accused has been acquitted of the charges. The prosecutrix has filed this application for grant of leave to appeal, against the said judgment of acquittal. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the impugned judgment. After considering and appreciating the entire evidence, available on record, the trial court observed that the prosecutrix was married over 18 years ago and is having children in the age group of 15 and 17 years, and her husband is a police personnel, working with the CID, Haryana. It has been further observed that the incident had taken place in the intervening night of 13/14.1.2010 at 1.00 AM, but the FIR was lodged on 14.1.2010 at 4.15 PM, i.e. after more than 15 hours of the alleged incident, and this long delay in reporting the matter has not been explained. While disbelieving the version of the prosecutrix, the trial court held that no plausible reason has been given by the prosecution as to why she was sleeping alone in the rear portion of the house leaving the door of the room Crl. Misc. No. A-266-MA of 2011 -4- open. It has been further held that in December, 2009, Amit had got registered an FIR against the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, and thereafter, with a motive to put pressure upon him to compromise the said matter, on 14.1.2010, the complainant had falsely named Amit and respondent No.1-accused. While observing that as per the case of the prosecution, in the peak winter season at about 1.00 AM (night), the prosecutrix was alone in the room with the lights switched on and she had not bolted the door from inside, and after coming to know of the incident, the husband of the prosecutrix took two days to return, the trial court did not believe the version of the prosecutrix. The trial court has further held that half of the version given by the complainant was found to be not true, as out of two persons, named by the prosecutrix, it was found by the police that at the alleged time of the incident, Amit was not present in that area. After perusing the impugned judgment and considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting respondent No.1-accused, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Crl. Misc. No. A-266-MA of 2011 -5- Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. Thus, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE July 27, 2011 ( A.N. JINDAL ) ndj JUDGE