Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 2003 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 2003 Date of decision : 11.8.2008 Mohinder Pal .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae Mr. B.S. Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. The prosecution allegations, as upheld by the learned Trial Judge, were that appellant induced the prosecutrix aged 6 years (grand daughter of first informant) to a secluded place (an enclosure belonging otherwise to one Sodhi Ram) and was about to rape her when Tej Ram PW2 reached there and rescued her. Tej Ram grappled with the appellant to catch him but the latter succeeded in fleeing from the spot. A panchayat was convened to compromise the matter but the appellant did not enter appearance before it. Ultimately, an FIR was registered with the Police on 21.4.2002. 2. The prosecution presentation at the trial was supported Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 2003 -2- **** by testimony on oath of PW-1 i.e. the prosecutrix herself, PW-2 Tej Ram, PW-4 Piara Ram complainant and PW-4 ASI Dalbir Singh. The case had been investigated by PW-5 ASI Sukhraj Singh. PW-3 Dr. Inderpal Singh had medico legally examined appellant on 22.4.2002 and opined that there was nothing to suggest that appellant was unable to perform sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix had been medico legally examined by PW-7 Dr. H.S.Rana who observed as under:- “1. According to the history of the victim told that a man came and asked me to remove your cloth and I refused then he torned my clothes and kissed me. 2. There was no assault or sign of injury on the body of victim. 3. There was no injury on the external genitalia. 4. Both majors were healthy, hymen intact. 5. Introitus of the child was normal. There was no discharge. 6. No injury or trauma on the chest or cheeks. 7. No signs of penile penetration was present. 8. Date of incident on 18.4.2002 at 5.30 pm. According to Piara Ram.” 3. The appellant pleaded innocence and alleged that he had been falsely implicated “ due to the enmity of Duman and Tej Ram and party faction in the village”. 4. DW-1 Sukhdev Singh, a Numberdar of the village since Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 2003 -3- **** year 1990, was examined to give `certification' of good character to the appellant. Besides averring that impugned occurrence had not taken place at all, he testified that Duman Singh and few others had been convicted on a charge of raping Banso, sister-in-law of the appellant. His testimony is supportive of the defence plea of false implication. 5. Ex. D1 an attested copy of FIR No. 30 dated 29.1.1983under Section 376.342/366 IPC, Police Station Saddar Phagwara, was tendered into evidence. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae argues that the prosecution case is false on the very face of it inasmuch as the FIR in this case had been lodged after a delay of three days and further that the only independent witness examined to support the prosecution plea ( i.e. Teja Ram) is proved on record to be on having inimical inclination towards the appellant. 7. Learned State Counsel reiterates the correctness of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. 8. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant deserves acceptance. The reasons therefor are as under:- 9. As per the prosecution plea, the impugned occurrence had taken plan on 18.4.2002 at about 5.30 P.M. The FIR came to be lodged on 21.4.2002 at 3.35 P.M. The explanation in the context is that the Panchayat was making a compromise endeavour in the meantime. It is also in evidence that the Panchayat is headed by Madan Lal who had also accompanied first informant to the police. Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 2003 -4- **** Further averment in the context is that the appellant did not enter appearance before the Panchayat. Madan Lal afore-mentioned was, thus, best circumstanced to own the prosecution plea that the Panchayat was endeavouring a compromise and further that it was the appellant who did not enter appearance before the Panchayat. Madan Lal was not examined at the trial. It is not the plea that he is not available for being put in witness box. The aspect of unexplained delay assumes added importance in the peculiar circumstances of the case in which it is proved on record that the only independent witness i.e. Tej Ram is proved to have strained relations with the appellant He conceded, as correct, a suggestion that “my buffaloes had broken the horn of the buffaloes of accused about one year prior to the occurrence.” Thereafter, he proceeded to aver that “thereafter the marriage of the daughter of the accused took place. I had not gone to the marriage as I was not invited.” 10. In that view of things, it is obvious that he did not have normal equation with the appellant and, in fact, their relations inter-se are far from easy. 11. In view, thus, of the fact that the FIR in the present case had been lodged after inordinate and unexplained delay of three days and also the fact that the only independent witness Tej Ram is proved to have strained relation with appellant and further in view of the medical opinion quoted in para 2 of this judgment, the benefit thereof has to accrue to the appellant. 12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 2003 -5- **** finding of conviction is found to be unsustainable. The appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge. August 11, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE