Crl.Rev.No. 1058 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1058 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.7.2011 Rajan and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Jattan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Hooda, Addl.A.G.Haryana **** SABINA, J. Petitioners faced the trial in FIR No.297 dated 9.8.2001 registered at Police Station Shahbad under Sections 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Vide judgment dated 19.12.2009, the trial Court convicted the petitioners under Section 377 IPC. Vide order of the even date, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. In case of default of payment of fine, the petitioners were further required to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said judgment and order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 25.3.2011. Hence, the present petition. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 7.8.2001, the petitioners and Jameel had administered liquor to Tejpal son of the complainant. Thereafter, they committed carnal Crl.Rev.No. 1058 of 2011 (O&M) 2 intercourse against the order of nature with Tejpal. The victim, aged about 16 years, was rescued by Harphool Singh and Ram Chander. Trial of accused Jameel was separated and was sent to Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12.10.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Courts below had erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 377 IPC. There was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The ocular version was not corroborated by medical version. Ram Chander had not been examined as a witness. There were discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 7.8.2001. The victim was a young boy aged 16 years. Victim Tejpal appeared as PW-2 in the witness box and deposed that the petitioners had committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him in the night of 7.8.2001. He raised alarm which attracted Harphool Singh and Ram Chander to the spot. After two days, his father returned home and he disclosed the entire occurrence to him and thereafter, they had lodged the FIR. Since the victim was a minor, it was natural for him to have waited for his father before lodging the report. Complainant Om Parkash, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has also deposed that he had gone to village Farmana 2-3 days prior to the occurrence and when he returned back home, he was informed by his son Tejpal that the Crl.Rev.No. 1058 of 2011 (O&M) 3 petitioners and Jameel had committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him. Thus, the delay in the present case cannot be said to be un-explained as the victim waited for his father to return home and thereafter lodged the report. There is also no force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the ocular version was not supported by the medical version. Dr. Sanjay Sethi, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3, deposed that there was history of rectal bleeding per anus told by the patient. There was history of anal pain during the defecation. On anal examination, tenderness was present over peri anal area. There was bleeding over redness. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, there was enough evidence that forcible anal penetration was performed. Hence, the ocular version stood duly corroborated by medical version. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any major discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses, which would render the prosecution case doubtful. The fact that Ram Chander was not examined as a witness by the prosecution is not fatal to the prosecution case as the victim himself has appeared and has duly supported the prosecution case. The ocular version is duly corroborated by the medical version. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 19, 2011 anita