IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1996 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 26, 2011 Nath Ram .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Nath Ram aged about 69 years along with his two brothers, namely, Harmesh Kumar and Paramjit Singh were put to dock for outraging the modesty of their brother's wife and ultimately vide judgment dated 19.2.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, Nath Ram was convicted and sentenced accordingly, whereas, since Paramjit Singh and Harmesh Kumar were declared as Proclaimed Offenders, therefore, no proceedings could take place against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court-II, Hoshairpur, vide its judgment dated 17.8.2011 dismissed the appeal with the modification in the sentence which was reduced from one year to nine months each under Sections 354/506 IPC. About 12 years prior to the occurrence, complainant Saroj was married to the brother of the petitioner, namely, Kushal Singh, who was residing in Germany. The petitioner as well as the other accused since proclaimed offenders were pressing the complainant for signing papers regarding divorce. On 5.6.1999, the complainant had gone to attend the Bhog ceremony of her father-in-law, when at about 1.30 p.m. after the ceremony was over, the petitioner as well as the other accused took her to the room at the first floor and insisted upon to sign the papers, she did not agree, at this, Harmesh Kumar had bolted the door, Paramjit Singh slapped and threw her on the bed and thereafter all the three accused compelled her to consume some tablets. Thereafter, Paramjit Singh caught hold of her Crl. Revision No. 1996 of 2011 -2- *** from breast and all the three accused manhandled her and did obscene acts. However, on finding time, she escaped from the room. Efforts to compromise were made but failed, hence on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by Saroj on 13.6.1999, a case was registered and accused were arrested on 14.6.1999. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. The accused was charged under Sections 354/506 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Saroj Rani (PW1), Subhash Chander (PW2), Vinod Kumar (PW3) and SI Nirmaljit Singh (PW4). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. In defence, he examined Bal Krishan Ahlmed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar (DW1). The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal was also dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Arguments heard. Record perused. Baldev Singh father-in-law of the complainant had died on 31.5.1999, therefore, in the normal circumstances Bhog ceremony was to take place after 12 days as is prevalent in the Hindus, but there was no occasion for her to come to the house of the accused on 5.6.1999. In any case, there is a serious delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence, according to her, took place on 5.6.1999, whereas the FIR was lodged on 13.6.1999. Such huge delay of 8 days, has not been explained by the prosecution. The story suffers from improbabilities. Had she been in the hands of three persons, then she would not escaped unhurt. It appears that since the accused were putting pressure upon the complainant to sign some papers of divorce, therefore, she felt annoyed and involved them in this criminal case. Saroj Rani while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 has stated that when she did not agree to sign the papers, she was thrown on the bed, the accused caught her from the clothes and the breast. She has mentioned in her complaint Ex.PA that her shirt and bra was torn near the breast, but no such clothes were produced before the police in order to authenticate the Crl. Revision No. 1996 of 2011 -3- *** prosecution version. The complainant appears to be over-jealous in involving the petitioner in the false case. She had been residing with her parents since long when her husband was residing in Germany. She had also involved the petitioner in a case under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC and had also filed a divorce petition against her husband which was later on withdrawn for the reasons known to her. Actually, the complainant has suppressed the material facts. According to her, her father in law had died on 31.5.1999, but as per death certificate, he had died on 1.6.1999, as such, the complainant even is not aware about the date of death of her father in law. She being a married lady, while living with her parents had selected an occasional date in order to settle her scores. According to her, many ladies were present in the house, but none has come forward to support the allegations. Both the courts below having not considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and appears to have mis-appreciated the evidence. If the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, even then, no mens rea to outrage the modesty in the mind of the petitioner, who was 69 years old at that time, could be detected. Consequently, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had outraged her modesty. Resultantly, this petition is accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and while extending benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Fine, if any paid by him, be refunded. September 26, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge