Crl. Revision No. 2986 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2986 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 17, 2011 Roshan Lal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-Roshal Lal has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated 7.8.2006 and order dated 8.8.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide which he was con- victed under Sections 342 and 377 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of ` 200/- for an offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- for an offence under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as the Crl. Revision No. 2986 of 2010 (O&M) 2 judgment dated 3.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, who while affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that complainant-Bhim Singh moved a complaint against the accused- Roshan that on 13.8.2001 at about 10-11.00 a.m. his son Monu was playing with children near his house. Upon hearing the voice of weeping of his son, he went towards the house of accused, upon seeing him, accused had fled away in the process of tightening the string of his Pajama after leaving his (complainant’s) son in his house. On query, his son disclosed the tail of woes to him, that accused by calling him (Monu) has committed carnal intercourse upon him (Monu). On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered against the accused. Accused was arrested. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The victim as well as the accused were medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court. The accused-petitioner was charge sheeted for offence under Sections 342 and 377 of Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses and thereafter closed the evidence. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. However, he did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence under Sections 342 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as noticed above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court. Crl. Revision No. 2986 of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have heard Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana and have also gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Courts below have not properly appreciated the statements of PW1 and PW2 i.e. complainant-Bhim Singh father and victim (PW2) and there are contradictions in the statement of both these material witnesses which create a ring of doubt around the prosecution story. He further argued that no independent witness has been examined to corroborate the statement of the victim and as such the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be rejected. It is well settled principle of law that in cases of sexual assault the Court must deal with utmost sensitivity and should examine broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or discrepancies which may occur during the statements of material witnesses. The minor discrepancy which does not go to the root of the case may occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses. In the cases of sexual assault there is no need of any independent corroboration. The statement of the victim, if found truthful, is sufficient to convict the accused. In this case the victim has categorically deposed that the petitioner accused had committed carnal intercourse with him. The statement of the victim is corroborated by his father Bhim Singh PW1 as well as the medical evidence. PW6 Doctor Rakesh Kumar, who had medically examined the victim, found small radial laceration present at 12 O’clock position of anal orifice and wedge shaped laceration present near 12 O’clock position of anal office which bleeds on touch” and opined that Crl. Revision No. 2986 of 2010 (O&M) 4 possibility of sodomy could not be ruled out which is corroborated by FSL report Ex.P1. Both the Courts below after adducing the evidence available on the record came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record that the petitioner-accused was unable to perform sexual intercourse. The petitioner has failed to prove on record that he has been implicated on account of enmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the findings of both the Courts below. Otherwise also, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction this Court ordinarily should not reappreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court. In the absence of any manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. Moreover, there is no illegality in the findings of the Courts below. As regards the sentence, the petitioner has performed the sexual intercourse with a minor child of 6 years old, therefore, the petitioner, who has committed such type of heinous crime, is not entitled for any leniency and rather deterrent punishment should be imposed on such type of accused. As a sequel to my above discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge March 17, 2011 Anand