Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2002. Date of Decision : 7.10.2009. Asa Ram ......Petitioner Versus Prem Singh alias Premi & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated July 13th, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, Prem Singh alias Pemi and Noor Mohd- respondents No.1 and 2 were acquitted in case First Information Report No. 540 dated October 5th, 1997 under Sections 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Palwal. 2. Prosecution story is that on September 19th, 1997 at about 7 PM, Kamlesh wife of Kumar Pal-prosecutrix (PW-9) was all alone in her house situated in village Nangla Mohmadpur. The respondents came and asked her to accompany them to see her ailing mother. Premi is her uncle in relation. She accompanied them on motor-cycle. When they reached near village Kithwari, Nur Mohd. steered the motor-cycle towards the embankment of the canal and stopped it near the bushes. Both of them committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She was also threatened with dire consequences in case she disclosed the occurrence to any one. Prosecutrix remained with them upto 12 midnight. She was left at Palwal by the respondents. She did not narrate the occurrence to any one. Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2002. 2 3. On October 5th, 1997, that is, after 16 days of the alleged occurrence, she reported the matter to the Police. She was medically examined by Dr. Shashi Bala (PW-13). 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Subhash Chand Constable (PW-1), Malkhan Singh, Constable (PW- 2), Dr. V.P. Gupta (PW-3), Dr. A.P. Sharma (PW-4), Azad Singh (PW-5), Sita Ram (PW-6), Jeet Ram (PW-7), Asha Ram (PW-8), Kamlesh (PW-9), Balwan Singh (PW-10), Anoj Kumar Draftsman (PW-11), Randhir Singh (PW-12) and Dr. Shashi Bala (PW-13). 5. When examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it was stated by the respondents that false case was registered against them on account of litigation pending between them and the father of the prosecutrix Asa Ram (PW-8). 6. The only point which requires consideration in this revision is as to whether prosecutrix was raped by the accused or not? 7. Prosecutrix, while appearing into the witness box has deposed that her brother Sham was involved in 10/15 criminal cases at the instance of Premi accused and that Nur Mohd- respondent No.2 is a witness for Premi in cases pending between her father and Premi. This shows that relations between the prosecutrix and the respondents bordered enmity. In view of that, it is not acceptable that the respondents would go to her house and ask her to accompany them to see her ailing mother and she would immediately agree. No explanation has been put forth by the prosecution as to why she did not lodge the report to the Police immediately after the occurrence and rather chose to wait for 16 days. Per the prosecutrix and the Medical Officer, who examined the prosecutrix, prosecutrix was carrying nine months old pregnancy and she had not received any injury on her person when she was raped. Since it was alleged that she was raped in the bushes and was having nine months old pregnancy, it appears un-believable that there would not have been any mark of injury on her person particularly, when she was subjected to forcible sexual assault. It has Criminal Revision No. 2166 of 2002. 3 been also stated by the prosecutrix that prior to lodging of the report, she made a complaint to the Police and the inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palwal and he found the complaint to be false. 8. For the reasons recorded supra, the judgment passed by the trial Court is in consonance with law. There is no perversity or any error of judgment. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 7.10.2009. SN