IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.837 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2010 TEJINDERKAUR @ TEJINDERJIT KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to judgment of acquittal dated 26.2.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. It transpires that, at the instance of the petitioner- complainant/prosecutrix, respondent No.2/accused was tried for commission of offences under Sections 376, 506, Indian Penal Code. Acquittal has been recorded by the trial court while noticing that the complainant is a clever lady. She had strong motive to falsely implicate the Criminal Rev. No.837 of 2009 2 accused. An agreement for selling house of the complainant was executed and earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- was received. The complainant admitted the agreement, Exhibit DC/1, and another document, Exhibit DC/2, which bear her signatures. The complainant also issued cheque, Exhibit DD, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The sale deed was to be executed on 13.1.2004. The accused started demanding the cheque back. The complainant wanted to secure the cheque without payment of amount. After arrest of the accused, the complainant reached a compromise with the accused and the cheque and other documents were handed over to Shri R.M. Zakhmi, Advocate. On 27.1.2004, the complainant, accompanied by her husband and brother, visited the office of Shri Zakhmi and sought permission to take the cheque out of the room as the room was not sufficiently illuminated. After taking the cheque outside, the complainant fled with the cheque and the documents. In regard to this offending act, Shri Zakhmi lodged a complaint, Exhibit D1, whereupon FIR, Exhibit D2, was registered. Challan has been presented against the complainant and her husband in the said case (FIR No.89 of 2005) and they are facing trial. From Exhibits DX/1, DX/2, DX/3, DX/4 and DX/5, it becomes evident that the complainant is being tried for commission of offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, also. The above referred material has been considered by the trial court to reach a conclusion that the complainant was inimical and had motive to falsely implicate the accused. The conclusion, in my considered opinion, is based on relevant material and calls for no interference. Criminal Rev. No.837 of 2009 3 So far as the incident is concerned, discrepant statement has been given. In statement, Exhibit PA, the complainant stated that she had been working at the Medical Store of the accused, for the last 2 months, prior to the occurrence. In cross-examination, she changed the version to say that she had worked at the Medical Store of the accused 6 months before the incident and had left the employment before the incident. If she was not in employment, the genesis of the incident cannot be believed, in so much as it has been pleaded by the complainant that her employer i.e. the accused, had asked her to collect some injections from the Store, situated on the backside. The trial court has also noticed that although the case of the complainant is that her hands were tied with a rope/string, there was no mark of injury. So far as the injuries on the person of the complainant are concerned i.e. bruises on the face, neck right side, and abrasions on the mouth, the medico-legal aspect belies the statement of the complainant in so much as, as per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were received 24 to 48 hours earlier to the medical examination. The case of the complainant, however, is otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to the court that the conclusions drawn are not based on relevant pieces of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this court to re- appreciate evidence in this revision against acquittal and come to a different conclusion. The conclusions drawn by the trial court are based on relevant evidence. Criminal Rev. No.837 of 2009 4 No ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. February 10, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?