Crl. Revn. No. 2166 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2166 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 Rinku Saini .... Petitioner Vs. Shiv Dayal and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent no. 2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 47736 of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case : Rinku complainant has filed this revision petition assailing judgment of acquittal dated 22.02.2008 passed by learned Additional Crl. Revn. No. 2166 of 2008 2 Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra thereby acquitting Shiv Dayal in case FIR No.57 dated 17.02.2007, under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Shahbad, District Kurukshetra. The petitioner – resident of Village Deeg lodged FIR alleging that his sister Suman Rani aged 16/17 years after having passed 10+2 examination was working as a teacher in Holy Child School, Chhapra, whereas Mamta – youngest sibling was studying in the same school in 10th standard. On 14.02.2007, Suman left home at about 08:00 A.M. for the school, but did not come back. On inquiry, it was found that she did not reach the school on that day. After failing to search her, FIR was lodged on 17.02.2007. On 18.02.2007, on the basis of secret information, Suman was recovered while riding pillion of motorcycle, which was being driven by respondent no.1 Shiv Dayal. Suman made statement that she was born on 11.12.1989 and under threat, respondent no.1 took her on his motorcycle on the fateful day forcibly and raped her in a sugarcane field and then took her to Kali Mandir, Kurukshetra on the assurance that he would marry her, but on the pretext that she was minor, he told that he could not marry her. Respondent no.1 then took her on motorcycle to Yamuna Nagar and in a room on the weigh bridge near Railway Station, raped her during the night. On 15.02.2007, he took her on motorcycle to Bus Stand, Yamuna Nagar and then in a bus to Haridwar. From Haridwar, she was taken to Agra by bus, where they reached on 16.02.2007. They went around different places in Agra. Thereafter, she was taken from Agra to Delhi by bus. She was again taken to Haridwar by bus and then to Yamuna Nagar also by bus. From Yamuna Nagar, respondent no. 1 took her on motorcycle and while going to Pipli, she was recovered by the police from the pillion of the motorcycle. Charge under Section 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC was framed against respondent no. 1. Crl. Revn. No. 2166 of 2008 3 After examining the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.02.2008 acquitted the accused – respondent no.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. As regards age of the prosecutrix, respondent no.1 proved in defence evidence that date of birth of Mamta Rani – younger sister of the prosecutrix was recorded in school record as 08.06.1990. Consequently, a reasonable doubt has been rightly entertained about the date of birth of the prosecutrix being 11.12.1989. In other words, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was under the age of 18 years on 14.02.2007 i.e. the date of occurrence. In any event, the prosecutrix, as per her own version, was aged 17 years and 02 months on the date of occurrence. The trial court has found that she was consenting party. As noticed herein above, the prosecutrix was taken on motorcycle to Kali Mandir, Kurukshetra. On the way, one has to pass through the town of Kurukshetra and then in the Mandir also, there are so many persons. From Kurukshetra, she was taken to Yamuna Nagar on motorcycle. It is a busy road. From Yamuna Nagar, she was taken by bus to Haridwar. On Bus Stand, Yamuna Nagar also, there must have been large number of persons. At Haridwar also, they went to Dharamshala as well as Har Ki Pauri and other places. The said area is also crowded area. Then they went to Agra by bus. They visited the Agra Fort and other places at Agra. Those places are also crowded places being tourist places. From Agra, she was taken to Delhi. Delhi Bus Stand is again a crowded place. From Delhi, she was brought to Yamuna Nagar and from Yamuna Nagar, on motorcycle she was taken to Pipli. However, throughout the prosecutrix made no attempt to raise alarm or to escape. At every moment, the prosecutrix had all the opportunity to raise alarm or to escape if she had not been consenting party. However, she did not raise alarm, nor tried to escape Crl. Revn. No. 2166 of 2008 4 at any stage. It is thus manifest that prosecutrix was consenting party. The conclusion of the trial court to this effect is perfectly justified and does not suffer from any infirmity. In addition to the aforesaid, in the case of acquittal by trial court, presumption of innocence of the accused gets strengthened and reinforced because there is initial presumption of innocence of every person and judgment of acquittal reinforces it. There is thus double presumption of innocence. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, judgment of acquittal cannot be converted into judgment of conviction. Even in appeal, the Appellate Court would be slow to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Revisional power is further limited in scope. Moreover, even if two views are possible, view favourable to the accused has to be accepted. In the instant case, the only reasonable view that is possible from the testimony of the prosecutrix herself is that she was a consenting party to the whole affair and therefore, respondent no.1 has been rightly acquitted. Even otherwise, judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed merely on the ground that another view is also possible. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. August 17, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE