Criminial Revision No. 192 of 2008(O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminial Revision No. 192 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision : 14.10.2009 Santosh Kauri and another .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. R.K.Rana, Advocate for the complainant. S. D. ANAND, J. Criminal Misc. No.4803 of 2008 For the affidavit supported reason indicated in the course of the applicant, the delay of 302 days in filing the revision petition shall stand condoned. Criminal Revision No.192 of 2008 The petitioners have filed the present petition to obtain the invalidation of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge in case FIR No.88 dated 19.9.2004 under Sections 364, 376, 450/34 IPC, Police Station, Bilga. In support of the plea, the learned counsel argues that there was hardly any justification for the learned Trial Court to have exonerated the private respondents on a charge of gang rape. It is argued that the prosecutrix had been subjected to gang rape by three respondents and the it is travesty of justice that they came to be acquitted by the learned Trial Court inspite of the fact that the medical testimony was adequate enough Criminial Revision No. 192 of 2008(O&M) -2- **** to prove that the prosecutrix had been raped. I have heard Mr. Ashok Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri B.B.S.Teji, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Sh. R.K.Rana, learned counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. In recording the impugned finding of acquittal, the learned Trial Judge drew sustenance from the fact that inspite of there being an allegation that the prosecutrix had been subjected to gang rape, her hymen was found intact. He also was influenced by the fact that the First Information Report about the occurrence had been lodged after unexplained delay of 23 hours. The plea that the prosecutrix and her mother could not lodge the report as they were put under the fear of the respondents was negatived by averring that there is no proof on the record that respondents possessed any weapon at that point of time. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that though no semen was found on the vaginal swabs by the Chemical Examiner, it found semen on vaginal slides. (“spermatozoa were seen on the contents of exhibit No.II”). The plea raised is neither here nor there, particularly when it is oblivious of the report by the Chemical Examiner no spermatozoa was found on vaginal swabs. The prosecutrix had testified on oath that rape was committed upon her more than 20 times and that she was not accustomed to sexual intercourse prior to the impugned occurrence. (“The accused might had committed rape on me more than twenty times. I was not accustomed to sexual intercourse earlier to this occurrence”). A copy of her statement was placed on file by the petitioners. The plea raised is also unmindful of the statement of PW Dr. Adarsh Sood who had examined the petitioner/prosecutrix Lovepreet Kaur on 20.9.2004 at 6.00 Criminial Revision No. 192 of 2008(O&M) -3- **** P.M. and observed as under:- “1. Complaint of pain in the left elbow. On examination, there was no redness, tenderness and swelling of the left elbow. Advised X-ray. 2. Complaint of pain in the right buttock. No redness or tenderness or examination. On P/v examination. Hymen was intact. There was no bleeding p/v or discharge at the time of examination. P/v was not done as the hymen was intact. Two vaginal swabs were taken, two slides were made from them and sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala for presence of semen. The above facts go a long way to support the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge which (finding) is also buttressed by the fact of there being unexplained inordinate delay of 23 hours in lodging of the First Information Report. There is no justification whatsoever to interfere in the evidence appreciation-based exoneration granted by the learned Trial Judge. Dismissed. October 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No