Crl.Rev.No. 1575 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1575 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Gurdeep Singh @ Bhola ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner had faced trial under Sections 342/ 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) in FIR No.39 dated 7.5.2009 under Sections 342/ 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 30.11.2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for an offence under Sections 342/ 354 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 12.7.2011. Hence, the present petition by the accused. Crl.Rev.No. 1575 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 6.5.2009 at about 11 a.m., complainant was present in her house. The complainant was running a beauty parlour in her village. The petitioner came to her house and inquired about her and stated that his sister-in-law was calling her for threading. The sister-in-law and sister of the petitioner used to get threading etc. done from the complainant. The complainant went to the house of the petitioner. The complainant was told that the sister-in-law of the petitioner was in the room in the middle. When the complainant went inside of the said room, the petitioner bolted the room from inside and outraged her modesty. When the complainant came near the main gate after rescuing herself, the petitioner caught hold of the shirt of the complainant and tore it. The complainant, however, managed to flee away and reached her house. The complainant narrated the occurrence to her parents and the matter was reported to the village sarpanch. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the complainant on the next day i.e. 7.5.2009. After presentation of challan, prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the complainant as PW-1, Tarsem Kaur as PW-2, SI Jaswant Singh as PW-3 and Dr.Vandana Chadha as PW-4. The petitioner, in his defence evidence, examined DW-1 Balbir Singh and DW-2 Kesar Singh and also stepped himself in the witness box to make a statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. No reliance could be placed on the statement of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Crl.Rev.No. 1575 of 2011 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box, deposed as per the contents of her complaint. PW-2 Tarsem Kaur, who is the mother of the complainant, deposed that the petitioner had come to their house and had asked to send the complainant to their house as his sister-in-law required threading and she had sent her daughter to the house of the petitioner. However, after ten minutes, her daughter returned back home while weeping and her shirt was torn. There were nail scratches on the right arm of the complainant. The complainant had told her that she had been assaulted by the petitioner. PW-4 Dr.Vandana Chadha deposed that she had medico legally examined the complainant on 8.5.2009 and proved the medico legal report prepared by her. The said witness had found two abrasions on the dorsal aspect of the right forearm of the complainant and two abrasions on her upper chest. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 6.5.2009 at about 11 a.m.and the FIR was lodged on the next day. The complainant has averred that the entire incident had been reported to the village sarpanch but since the matter could not be sorted out, thereafter, it was reported to the police. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. The Courts below had rightly placed reliance on the statement of the complainant, which was corroborated on material facts by her mother. DW-1 Balbir Singh and DW-2 Kesar Singh had deposed Crl.Rev.No. 1575 of 2011 (O&M) 4 that the petitioner had never misbehaved with the complainant. However, the statements of the said witnesses fail to rebut the trustworthy testimony of the complainant qua the occurrence. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2011 anita