Criminal Revision No. 1951 of 2003 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1951 of 2003 Date of Decision : 21.04.2011. Beero Begum ......Petitioner Versus Nawabdeen & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J (Oral) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated April 8th, 2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby, the respondents were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 34 dated February 12th, 1998 under Sections 342, 343, 365, 376 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. 2. Prosecution was launched on the statement of Beero Begum (PW-1) against Nawabdeen, Gama son of Nawabdeen, Gulam Rasul, Ibrahim, Min (brothers of the prosecutrix) and Mohammad Deen, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 respectively. It was alleged that she was married with Lal Husain in the year 1997 against the wishes of her family members. After residing for a few months with Lal Hussain, she was forcibly taken away by respondents No. 1 to 5 and was kept detained illegally. Thereafter, she was sold to Mohammad Deen (respondent No.6) by her brothers. She remained with him for two months at his house. During that period, she was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent by Mohammad Deen. 3. Learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents Criminal Revision No. 1951 of 2003 2 .. taking into consideration three statements of the prosecutrix viz. Exhibit PW8/B, Exhibit DA, Exhibit DB and the statement made by her before the trial Court as PW-1, because she had given different versions of the occurrence in her four statements. She filed complaint (Exhibit PW8/B) on December 19th, 1997 before Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. Since the Police did not take action on her complaint, she filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1997 before this Court. By order dated January 12th, 1998, this Court passed the following order :- “ Disposed of with the directions to respondent No. 2 to depute a gazetted officer who will look into the allegations of the complaint as contained in Annexure P/2. If the offier so deputed comes to the conclusion that some cognizable offence has been committed, the police shall order for the registration of the case. Copy of the order be given Dasti. One copy of the order be sent to respondent No.2 for compliance.” 4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, statement (Exhibit DA) of the petitioner was recorded by Superintendent of Police on February 11, 1998 wherein, she levelled allegation of rape only against Mohammad Deen and none else. 5. In her complaint, (Exhibit PW-8/B), the petitioner did not level allegation against any of the respondents that she was subjected to rape. Her only allegations were that she married Lal Hussain without the consent of her brothers – Ibrahim and Min. Thereafter they along with other accused, except Mohammad Deen, forcibly took away her from the house of Lal Deen and kept her at the house of Nawabdeen, respondent No.1, who wanted to sell her to Mohammad Deen, respondent No.6. 6. The matter does not rest here. On September 3rd, 1997 her statement (Exhibit DB) was recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot, wherein, she stated that she was forcibly taken away by Lal Deen and was kept illegally at his house and she did not want to stay with him any more. While appearing in the Criminal Revision No. 1951 of 2003 3 .. witness box as PW-1, she deposed that when she was confined at the house of Nawabdeen, she was subjected to sexual intercourse without consent by him, Mohammad Deen, respondent No.6 and Gulam Rasul, respondent No. 3. 7. In view of the inconsistent stand of the petitioner in her different statements at different points of time, it is not possible to believe that she was subjected to rape by any of the respondents. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment on any count which would call for the interference of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.04.2011 som