IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1327 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 08, 2009 Subhash Chander ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidarath Sarup, AAG Haryana Mr.Sunil Saharaw, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant. * * * Sabina, J. Petitioner-Subhash Chander was convicted under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 29.11.2002. Vide order dated 30.11.2002, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 451 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.250/- under Section 354 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bhiwani vide judgment dated 8.6.2006. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- Criminal Revision No.1327 of 2006 -2- “The matrix of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the trial Court record, is that on 28.7.1998, PW-1 complainant Geeta Devi wife of Ishwar Singh, resident of village Chhapar jogian, lodged a complaint with Sub Inspector Punjab Singh, who was present at Bus Stand Chhapar. She stated that her husband Ishwar Singh was working as Barber in a shop at Hisar while her two younger brothers-in-law (Dewars) were residing separately and her house is situated in between the houses of her brothers-in-law. She further stated that on 22.7.1998, she along with her children was sleeping in the courtyard in front of her house. At about 3.00 A.M., Subhash Chander son of Diwan Singh, resident of Village Chhapar Jogian, came near her and finding that she was alone, he started touching her with bad intention and remarked that in case she raised alarm then she would be abducted. She mustard courage and screamed loudly whereupon her mother-in-law, Bedo, who was sleeping the adjoining house, came running towards her, upon which Subhash Chander fled away. She further stated that after some time on hearing alarm, neighbours also collected. On the next morning, she went to Hisar to inform about this occurrence to her husband and then she along with her husband returned back her village. The villagers tried to settle the matter in the Panchayat but no compromise could be effected. She prayed for taking necessary action against the accused Subhash Chander. Investigation was carried out. On completion of investigation, report under Section Criminal Revision No.1327 of 2006 -3- 173 Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the court against the appellant- accused. After supplying the copy of the final report to the accused and on hearing the parties, the appellant/accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 451/354 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the first information report (for short `FIR') in this case was lodged after a delay of six days and the same had not been duly explained by the prosecution. Mother-in-law of the complainant had not been examined to corroborate her statement. Learned State counsel, who is assisted by Mr. Sunil Saharaw, counsel for the complainant has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case. The statement of the complainant was liable to be believed. She has no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. The delay in filing the FIR has been duly explained by the prosecution. The occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on 22.7.1998. As per the complainant, she was sleeping in the courtyard of her house along with her children. Petitioner came there at about 3.00 A.M. and started molesting her. On hearing alarm raised by the complainant, her mother-in-law, Bedo, who was sleeping in the adjoining room ,came at the spot and petitioner on seeing her, fled away. As per the complainant, neighbour also collected at the spot. FIR was,however, lodged on 28.7.1998. The plea taken by the complainant is that the matter was reported to Panchayat but no compromise could be effected and due to this reason, delay had occurred in lodging of the FIR. However, no Panchyat Criminal Revision No.1327 of 2006 -4- member in this regard has been examined by the prosecution to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. Ishwar Singh (PW2) and Rajinder (PW3) had reached the spot after the alleged occurrence. Mother-in-law of the complainant was not examined to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. Since the prosecution has failed to give a satisfactory explanation with regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR, the delay is fatal to the prosecution case. Petitioner is entitled for acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Petitioner is acquitted of the charged framed against him. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside. ( Sabina ) Judge January 08, 2009 arya