In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Revision No. 2449 of 2007 Date of Decision:March 09, 2009 Mamta ---Petitioner versus Mukesh and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. J.B.Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the respondents. *** SABINA, J. Respondents were convicted for an offence under Sections 452, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 15.6.2006 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar Vide order of even date passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar respondents were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 452 IPC and were sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, respondents preferred an appeal and the same was accepted by learned Additional Crl.Revision No. 2449 of 2007 -2- Sessions Judge-I, Jhajjar vide judgment dated 13.8.2007 and the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present revision petition by the complainant. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment, is as under:- “Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.7.2002, victim Mamta (18) PW-1) was present at her house in village Behrana. Both the accused entered into her house. Accused Chand alias Kale caught hold of her hand whereas accused Mukesh tried to molest her. He clutched her breasts. When she cried, her mother Smt. Savitri (PW3) reached there. Both the accused then fled from there extending the threat that in case she happened to till anything about it, she would be done to death. Victim Mamta told all about it to her father who reported the matter to the police vide written complaint mark-A dated 16.7.2002. On receipt of that complaint, formal FIR Ex. P2 was registered and the investigation was taken in hand. 4. During investigation, the place of occurrence was inspected by the investigating officer ASI Dharam (PW2). He prepared its rough site plan x. P1, recorded the statements of the Pws under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused were apprehended on 24.7.2002. After conclusion of the necessary investigation, challan was presented in the court for trial as envisaged under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by SI Ajmer Singh (PW5). Crl.Revision No. 2449 of 2007 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate court had erred in acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them. Prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have been rightly acquitted by the appellate court as the complaint had been drafted a day prior to the alleged occurrence and this created a doubt in the entire prosecution story. In the present case, occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14.7.2002. However, a written complaint was filed by the petitioner which was drafted on 13.7.2002. It was presented before the Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar on 15.7.202 and an endorsement was made on the same on 16.7.2002 on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Although, victim Mamta supported the prosecution case that the respondents had molested her after entering her house on 14.7.2002but since, complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered was drafted a day prior to the alleged occurrence, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jhajjar has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents. So far as PW-3 Savitri is concerned, she has deposed as per the occurrence narrated to her by the victim Mamta PW-1. The reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jhajjar while acquitting the respondents are sound reasons and calls for no interference. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the Crl.Revision No. 2449 of 2007 -4- instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgment of the appellate court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 09, 2009 PARAMJIT