-1- Criminal Revision No.2127 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2127 of 2002. Date of Decision: February 25, 2010. Man Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Man Singh faced trial under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') on the allegation that on 7.8.1995, he committed carnal intercourse -2- Criminal Revision No.2127 of 2002. with Amarjit Singh, who was a student of 8th Class aged about seven years, in the Dharamshala in the area of Village Kurail. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under Section 377 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by victim Amarjit Singh. During trial, Amarjit Singh, a student of 8th class, appeared as P.W.4 and deposed that on 7.8.1995 at about 8.30 P.M, he had gone to bring milk from `Majri', but he could not get the milk. He was returning to his home. When he reached near `Dharamshala', the accused-appellant Man Singh caught hold of him. He raised an alarm by asking the appellant as to why he was catching hold of him, but the accused picked him up and inserted a piece of cloth in his mouth. The appellant took the victim to the `Dharamshala'. The appellant removed his trouser and underwear and “did bad things with him”. The victim further stated that Anil Kumar (P.W.3) and Jarnail Singh had been attracted to the spot on hearing the cries raised by him. When they reached the spot, the accused-appellant left the victim and ran away. Nothing more could have been expected from a child witness at the time he -3- Criminal Revision No.2127 of 2002. made his deposition in Court. Anil Kumar (P.W.3) and Jarnail Singh had brought the boy to his home and told the whole story of the occurrence to his parents. The condition of the boy had deteriorated and his parents had brought him to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh for medical treatment. The police had recorded the statement (Exhibit P.C) of the boy at the hospital and on its basis the instant case was registered. Sunil (P.W.3). Dr. Jagir Mal (P.W.1) had medico-legally examined Amarjit Singh and observed as under:- “ 1. There were three abrasion injuries on the skin near the anus. These injuries were extended to the anal mucous. These were painful during the examination. There was pain during walking and deification. The colour of the injury was reddish brown at the time of examination. There was no bleeding and discharge. Size of the injury was 3 cms x 4 cms. 2. There was no other injury mark on the body thigh or buttock and there was no sign of pubic hair and semen at the time of examination. “ In the opinion of Dr. Jagir Mal (P.W.1), anal intercourse -4- Criminal Revision No.2127 of 2002. (sodomy) could not be ruled out. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (P.W.4) had medico-legally examined appellant Man Singh and opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was not able to do sexual intercourse. A copy of the medico-legal report in this regard is Exhibit P.B on record. The evidence led by the prosecution proves the case of the prosecution against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant could not prove any enmity between the complainant party and the accused which could have taken the complainant party to such an extent that honour and reputation of a boy in his teens and his family could be staked by them in order to falsely implicate the accused in such a heinous crime. It stands proved on record in certain terms that the act of penetration had been done by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued about the delay in lodging the First Information Report in this case, but facts and circumstances of the case have duly explained this delay. The appellant had sodomized the boy on 7.8.1995 at about 8 P.M. The boy was taken to his house by Anil Kumar (P.W.3) and Jarnail Singh. Thereafter a Panchayat was convened, but the matter could not be decided. As noticed above, the condition of the victim had deteriorated and he had to be hospitalized at Civil Hospital, Naraingarh. It was there in the Civil Hospital that the statement of the victim was recorded by the police on 10.8.1995, which led to the registration of this case against the accused. There was, thus, no delay in getting the case registered -5- Criminal Revision No.2127 of 2002. against the accused and the delay, if any, stands well-explained on record. In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all shadows of reasonable doubts. I do not see any reason warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit. February 25, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE