IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.2063 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2010 SMT. NIRMAL KUMARI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 3.12.2008, passed by the Special Judge, Panipat. After a delay of 3-1/2 months, the complaint was lodged, with no plausible explanation in regard to the delay. The trial court has, for the rights reasons, not taken into account the application made to the Chief Minister, as that is not the forum for making a complaint. So far as the incident itself is concerned, the discrepant stand Criminal Rev. No.2063 of 2009 2 taken by the complainant has been noticed in paras 18 to 20 of the impugned judgment. The earlier version given by the complainant is that on 13.8.2005 at about 7.30 AM, accused-Santosh Aneja, despite being on leave, entered the office of the complainant, who was working as a Matron and started beating her, while calling her with offending names. In the meantime, Jai Pal, Lab Assistant and Ranbir, Class-IV employee, arrived and rescued her, while the accused continued to call her bad names. Thus, the incident is stated to have taken place in the office of the complainant, as per the first version. After registration of the case, when the statement, Exhibit PC, was given by the complainant, it was further added that the occurrence had taken place in the presence of Ranbir, Class-IV employee, and Jai Pal, Lab Assistant, as well as in the presence of other persons from general public. The original version, thus, was improved upon. It has also been noticed by the trial Court that in the statement of the complainant recorded in court as PW-3, the statement was further improved by way of making allegations that the complainant was also assaulted by Chappal. So as to escape injuries, she came out of the office. The accused followed her and gave beatings outside the office in general public, while abusing her in the name of her caste. In my considered opinion, the discrepant statement goes to the root of the case, as the same relates to the incident itself and creates doubt in the mind of the court. Coupled with these facts and the delay, acquittal has been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to justify Criminal Rev. No.2063 of 2009 3 the discrepant stand of the complainant. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction 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?