CRR No.1493 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1493 of 2010 Date of Decision : 12.01.2011 Meethe Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar acquitting respondents No.2 to 5 in case F.I.R. No.9 dated 11.01.2006 registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jhajjar, District Jhajjar. Learned trial Court has relied upon the fact that when the complainant-prosecutrix made her initial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she had not named the said respondents. The CRR No.1493 of 2010 -2- statement EX.DC was put to the prosecutrix during cross- examination and she explained that exculpatory statement was made by her under the fear of the accused persons. Learned trial Court also noticed that at the time when prosecutrix made the statement under Section 164 she was in the custody of her father and thus came to the conclusion that statement was made under the fear of the accused persons could not be believed. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Utpal Das and another v. State of West Bengal, passed in Criminal Appeal No.800 of 2007, decided on 07.05.2010, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “Likewise statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can never be used as substantive evidence of truth of the facts but may be used for contradictions and corroboration of a witness who made it. The statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used to cross examine the maker of it and the result may be to show that the evidence of the witness is false. It can be used to impeach the credibility of the prosecution witness. In the present case it was for the defence to invite the victim’s attention as to what she stated in the first information report and statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the purposes of bringing out the contradictions, if any, in her evidence. In the absence of the same the CRR No.1493 of 2010 -3- Court cannot read 164 statement and compare the same with her evidence.” The present case is distinguishable for the simple reason that her statement was put to the prosecutrix and she did give an explanation. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court is so palpably perverse or erroneous so as to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 12, 2011 JUDGE ashish