Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 21, 2009 Meenu ---Petitioner versus State(Union Territory of Chandigarh) and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta ,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Ashish Kumar was tried for an offence under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 376,380 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in FIR No., 205 dated 11.7.2006 registered at police station East, Chandigarh. Vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved by the same, complainant-Meenu has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial court in para 2 to 4 of its judgment is as under:- “Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.7.2006, a Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {2} written complaint was made by complainant, Menu to the Senior Superintendent of Police stating therein that she is residing at SCO No.30-31, top floor, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh and is student of under law graduation course. She used to earn her livelihood through home tuition to Senior classes. On 9.1.2005, she was raped by one of her student Ashish Kumar, who came to her for having tuition to clear math compartment. She further stated that she had taken her objectionable photographs, through which, he used to blackmail her and also physically, mentally and sexually harassed her time and again and raped her for the last one and half year. Whenever, she used to refuse towards any physical relation, he threatened to kill her. The complainant further alleged that somehow her marriage took place at Gurdwara Jiwan Sudhar Sabha 2013-19, Sector 32, Chandigarh with the accused and after the marriage, the accused instead of taking her to the matrimonial home, took her to Hotel Royal Palace, Sector 7, Chandigarh, where he entered the false particulars in the hotel register. There he again raped her at night without her consent because she questioned him why he did not take her at his home. In the morning, she got shocked, when she found Ashish was missing from the room and he had stolen Rs.20,000/- from her purse, which her mother had given to her. Facing such situation, she believe that Ashish, his mother Rama Rani dishonestly induced her to marry and Ashish had sexually intercourse with her Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {3} without her consent. On the basis of this complaint, a formal FIR was registered against the accused. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. On 13.7.2006, complainant Meenu was got medico legally examined from GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh and her report was also obtained from the hospital. On 6.3.2007, the accused was also arrested and was also got medico legally examined. Ultimately, on completion of all the necessary investigations, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 376, 419, 468, 467, 471, 380, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 2 has sworn an affidavit (Annexure P-1) wherein he had undertaken that he would get his marriage with the petitioner registered and would not desert her. The said affidavit was sworn by respondent No. 2 on 16.10.2008. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the trial court. Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him as the petitioner had not supported the prosecution case on the assurance given by respondent No. 2 vide affidavit Annexure P-1. Now, respondent No. 2 has not honoured the undertaking given by him. In the present case, petitioner while appearing in the witness box did not support the prosecution case and due to this reason the public prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence, as the examination of remaining formal witnesses would not have advanced the prosecution case. In the impugned judgment, the statement of the prosecutrix has been reproduced Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {4} in paras 12 and 13 which reads as under:- 12.According to the prosecutrix when stepped into the witness box deposed as under:- I was residing at SCF No. 30-31, Sector 28, Chandigarh, since the year 2005, when the accused came into my contact as student for parting tution in Mathematics. We developed intimacy, which resulted into love affair and thereafter we got married on 22.3.2006 and started living as husband and wife, however, out relatives were against this marriage and my relatives used to pressurise me to leave the accused and to lodge a criminal case against him. Thereafter, the maternal uncle of accused on the next date of marriage taken away my husband along with money and he did not allow my husband to meet me during his life time. It was only under his pressure that I have lodged this case, otherwise, there is no dispute between both of us and we were leading a happy married life as husband and wife. After our marriage, we left the house for Honeymoon and stayed in Hotel Royal Palace, Sector-7, Chandigarh, and at that time we had not disclosed our correct name and address as the maternal uncle of my husband, who was against this marriage was searching us and we had an apprehension that he might kidnap my husband even before my marriage with accused, we used to had Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {5} sexual intercourse with my husband with my consent, as we had already decided to get marry. I am having no grudge against the accused and I was pressurized and force to lodge this case under the compelling circumstances. I do not want to say anything else.” 13.Not even this on the request of learned public prosecutor, the prosecutrix was declared hostile and allowed to be cross examined by learned public prosecutor but her stand could not be shattered by learned public prosecutor in any manner. On the contrary she denied the entire case of the prosecution and reiterated her stand. The stand taken by her in her cross is also reproduced as follows:- It is correct that I lodged complaint Ex. PR but the same was lodged by me under the pressure of my relatives and compelling circumstances. It is wrong to suggest that I have rightly given the complaint Ex. PR, as I was ravished by the accused time and again. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with me against my wishes before marriage and under the threat and pressure and refused to perform the marriage. It is wrong to suggest that I have performed my marriage with the accused under compelling circumstances, volunteered, that it was without any pressure and with my consent as well as the consent of body and out parents. It is correct that the identity was disclosed by accused wrongly, when we went for out Honeymoon after our marriage to Hotel Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {6} Royal Palace, Sector-7, Chandigarh, volunteered that we both had given wrong identity in the Hotel as the maternal uncle of my husband was against the marriage and was after us, who ultimately, took away my husband along with money to unknown destination. It is incorrect to suggest that the accused had given wrong identity with a view to ditch me or that he had stolen the cash of Rs. 20,000/- and left me without informing me on the next morning. It is incorrect to suggest that there was no conspiracy of Ashish with his mother, when he left me. Rather, he was compelled by his maternal uncle to leave me in destitute. It is correct that I had made statement Ex. PS. Before Magistrate, voltd, the same was made by me under the pressure of my relatives and my husband had been kidnapped along with money by his maternal uncle to an unknown destination, who is now no more and I am leading a happy married life after his death. It is incorrect to suggest that I am intentionally resiling from my statement Ex. PR and the statement Ex. PS, since I had compromised with the accused. It is incorrect to suggest that I had given supplementary statement Mark A to the police, wherein, the entire episode was narrated by me. It is incorrect to suggest that I am intentionally not supporting the prosecution case, since I have compromised the matter with the accused. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is incorrect to suggest that I had Crl. Revision No. 117 of 2009 {7} recorded the true facts in my complaint Ex. PR and Ex. PS. It is incorrect to suggest that accused forged Ex,. P12 to ditch me”. Thus, the petitioner herself has deposed that she is legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2. Since their relatives did not approve of the marriage, she was pressurized to lodge criminal case against respondent No. 2, otherwise there was no dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Learned trial court has observed that the petitioner is a major and a student of law (final year) and knew about her good and bad. She herself deposed that she has never been cheated by respondent No. 2.In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly acquitted respondent No. 2 of the charge framed against him. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant a retrial. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgment of the trial court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 21, 2009 PARAMJIT