CRM No. 25287 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 1065 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. 25287 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 1065 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Sukhdev Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. CRM No. 25287 of 2011 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay of 7652 days in filing this revision against the judgment dated 4.5.1990, rendered by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.5.1988, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, in case FIR No. 192 dated 18.10.1985, registered under Sections 354/323 IPC and 120 of the Railway Act, at Police station GRP Bathinda, was dismissed. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.10.1985 at about 11.00 a.m. Balbir Kaur along with her daughter Bhinder Kaur, aged about 12-13 years had gone to answer the call of nature near the CRM No. 25287 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 1065 of 2011 -2- Railway lines. After answering the call of nature they were returning to their house, in the meantime, Sukhdev Singh, accused came there armed with a danda on his cycle and enquired from them as to why they came towards the Railway lines. Reply by them was that they came to answer the call of nature. Accused disclosed his identity as the watchman of the Railway Protection Force and had caught hold of Balbir Kaur. She was taken towards the vacant side where he tried to outrage her modesty by catching her breasts. Raula was raised. Clothes of Balbir Kaur, were also torn and she received number of injuries with a belt. Occurrence was witnessed by Babu Lal, Santro and Pancha Ram. On receipt of injuries, Balbir Kaur, became unconscious and on seeing the witnesses accused had fled away from the spot. Injured was shifted to hospital where she was medico-legally examined. Intimation was given to the concerned police station. After getting opinion from the doctor, regarding the fitness of the injured, statement of Balbir Kaur was recorded and the same was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the petitioner was that he was on duty. Railway goods used to be stolen. Complainant was spotted near the Railway Yard. Then he raised lalkara challenging the complainant. On CRM No. 25287 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 1065 of 2011 -3- hearing alarm, complainant ran away from there and fell down on the Railway lines and received number of injuries by fall. False case was got registered when the complainant party felt that she might be involved in some theft case. On merits, petitioner was convicted under Section 354/323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 354 IPC. Under Section 323 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court, appeal was preferred and the appellant was ordered to be released on probation vide judgment dated 4.5.1990, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was ordered to be released on probation but Railway Authorities as per order of the Court has terminated the service of the petitioner. As per statement of the doctor injuries noticed on the person of complainant were possible by fall. Petitioner was on duty and when he tried to stop the complainant to steal coal then complainant received injuries by fall. Petitioner was implicated by levelling false allegations. Balbir Kaur- complainant gave an affidavit that case is false. Affidavit was submitted before the Railway Authorities to consider the same but Railway Authorities refused to consider the affidavit of Balbir Kaur. Petitioner is CRM No. 25287 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 1065 of 2011 -4- at the fag end of his life and want to wash out the stigma against him. After going through the file I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be not correct one. Allegation of the complainant-Balbir Kaur, is that she along with her minor daughter had gone to answer the call of nature. When she was returning then she was caught hold by the petitioner who tried to outrage her modesty by catching her from breasts. Injuries were also caused with a belt. Balbir Kaur, was medico-legally examined on the same day i.e. on 18.10.1985 at about 1.45 p.m. 9 injuries were noticed on the person of Balbir Kaur. One of the injury was contusion. Doctor did not state a word that injuries noticed were possible by fall. PW-3 Santro and PW-6 Pancha Ram, are the eye-witnesses. They have supported the version of Balbir Kaur. No evidence on the file that petitioner was inimical towards Inspector, Railway Police Force, namely, J.S. Chalana and the complainant party and the eye-witnesses were close to Inspector J.S. Chalana and were inimical towards the petitioner. No complaint till today that false case was got registered under the influence of Inspector J.S. Chalana. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court and the Ist Appellate Court. Revisional Court is not to re-assess or to re-evaluate evidence on file. When the evidence is misread or judgment is perverse only then revisional Court is to interfere. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, vide order dated 4.5.1990. Petitioner was ordered to be released on probation. After 20 years present revision was filed. No explanation why delay of more than 20 years. In case, after conviction by the trial CRM No. 25287 of 2011 in/and CRR No. 1065 of 2011 -5- Court and dismissal of the appeal by the Ist Appellant Court, Balbir Kaur gave an affidavit and the same was not honoured by the Railway Authorities then no ground to interfere. Revision petition is clearly time barred and no explanation to condone the delay. In view of all discussed above, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 7652 days in filing the instant revision is dismissed. Revision petition is also dismissed being time barred. May 9, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE