Crl.Rev.No. 1572 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1572 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Gurpal Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner along with co-accused Gurmahinder Singh had faced trial under Sections 354/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) in FIR No.25 dated 16.4.2007 under Sections 354/ 294/ 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 4.1.2011 convicted and sentenced the petitioner and his co-accused for an offence under Section 354/506/ 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 15.7.2011. Hence, the present Crl.Rev.No. 1572 of 2011 (O&M) 2 petition by the petitioner. Prosecution story, in brief, was that complainant Malkiat Kaur @ Chhinder Kaur was married to Gurmahinder Singh @ Pappu about 10 years prior to the occurrence. They were blessed with two sons. The elder brother of the husband of the complainant Gurjant Singh was still unmarried and often quarrelled with the complainant as her husband owned six killas of land. The petitioner had been visiting the house of the complainant and had an evil eye on her. On 13.4.2007, the complainant had gone to sleep along with her children after dinner. Gurjant Singh along with his parents slept in a separate room. Baldev Singh son of Atma Singh, husband of sister of her father had come to visit them and was sleeping along with Gurjant Singh and others in their room. At about 11 p.m., husband of the complainant along with Gurpal Singh came to the house. The complainant requested her husband to put the cot outside for Gurpal Singh but her husband insisted that he would sleep with them in the same room. At the instigation of the husband of the complainant, the petitioner started grappling with her and tried to lie with her on the cot. When the complainant raised alarm, her children started weeping. Baldev Singh also came at the spot. Thereafter, the petitioner fled away from the spot. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined the complainant as PW-1, Baldev Singh as PW-2 and Investigating Officer as PW-3. Thereafter, the statements of the petitioner and his co-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they examined DW-1 Gurjant Singh in their defence evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Crl.Rev.No. 1572 of 2011 (O&M) 3 petitioner had been falsely involved in this case. No offence under Section 354 IPC was made out. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, the complainant had lodged the FIR on the allegations that the petitioner had molested her at the abetment of her husband. The complainant had gone with her father to lodge the FIR. In these circumstances, the delay of three days in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant stated that she had been threatened by her husband that in case, she reported the matter to the police, she would face dire consequences. Husband of the complainant is also an accused in this case. Hence, there is no un- explained delay in lodging of the FIR in the present case. The husband of the complainant had insisted that the petitioner would also sleep with them in the same room and thereafter the petitioner had grappled with the complainant and had tried to lie down with her. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had an intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant. The husband of the complainant has also faced trial along with petitioner and was also convicted for an offence under Section 354/ 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Since the petitioner had come to the house of the complainant along with her husband, he got admittance in the house of the complainant with the help of her husband. The complainant had levelled serious allegations against her husband and the petitioner. Hence, the testimony of the complainant cannot be doubted. DW-1 Gurjant Singh is the brother of the husband of the complainant and Crl.Rev.No. 1572 of 2011 (O&M) 4 apparently, he tried to help his brother by deposing in his favour and in favour of the petitioner. The Courts below have rightly placed reliance on the testimony of the complainant while convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 354/ 506 IPC. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2011 anita