Crl. Rev. No.1302 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1302 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.05.2010 Harender Jha ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was convicted vide Order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat for an offence punishable under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against the said judgment before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissed the appeal vide Order dated 05.04.2010. Thus, the present revision has been filed against the judgment Crl. Rev. No.1302 of 2010 2 and Order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and judgment dated 05.04.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissing the said appeal. As per the facts recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Shubham son of Vijay Mittal to the effect that he is student of 6th standard. On 19.03.2009, at about 7.00 P.M., accused Harender, who was tenant in the house of Rajinder son of Risal Singli at Mahabir Colony, had carnal intercourse with him. Earlier also, accused had carnal intercourse with him three four times. Accused threatened to kill the complainant if he disclosed this fact to his family members. Complainant also alleged that accused had given banana to him to eat and he used to allure complainant to come to his house. On the complaint, present case was registered. Police investigations were set into motion. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. In order to prove the case, beside other witnesses, the prosecution examined PW-1 Shubham who is the victim. He is stated to be 12 years of age. The FIR was registered at his instance. PW-2 Vijay Mittal the father of the complainant who corroborated the statement of his minor son. PW-3 Rajbir Singh who is the Investigating Officer and Dr. Pardeep Kumar PW-7, the person who medico legally examined the complainant. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly Dr. Pardeep Kumar (PW-7), who medico-legally examined the complainant stated that no definite opinion can be given regarding sodomy. Thus, in view of the opinion of Dr. Pardeep Kumar, the petitioner cannot be convicted. This is a revision petition. The Court has limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is noticed that the complainant is a child of 12 years of age and as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Crl. Rev. No.1302 of 2010 3 Panipat, he deposed that he is student of 7th standard. On 19.03.2009, at about 7.00 p.m. accused Harender son of Baldev, resident of Mahabir Colony, Samalkha called the complainant to his rented accommodation and had carnal intercourse with him. He further deposed that accused committed the same offence three four times earlier also. The accused threatened him that if he told the incident to his parents, accused will kill him. He further deposed that on that day, accused Harender gave him a banana to eat. He further deposed that he did not tell about the incident to his parents due to fear of the accused. He identified the accused being present in the Court. Dr. Pardeep Kumar may have stated that no definite opinion can be given regarding sodomy but also found the following injuries on the person of the complainant which are as under :- “ Laceration present at upper left margin of anal canal between 10 `O' clock to `12 `O' clock position. Raw muscle pinkish in colour that did not bleed on touch. Duration of injury-Within 48 to 72 hours, cause by blunt weapon.” The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide Order dated 05.04.2010, in para No.11 held as under :- “ 11. xxx xxx The injury on upper left margin of anal canal can not be expected to be created by the victim himself and no person will put his prestige at stake by falsely implicating a person in such an offence, rather the statement of victim is a natural statement and cannot be discarded only on the ground that doctor has deposed that he cannot give definite opinion of sodomy.” In fact, Dr. Pardeep Kumar did not rule out the sodomy. It is also found that the accused himself admitted the commission of an offence in his cross-examination. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 Shubham, the child witness Crl. Rev. No.1302 of 2010 4 inspires confident. The child was found competent to testify and the Court considered him to be mature enough to understand questions put to him and to give rational answers. He even stood the cross-examination. Thus, the statement is nothing but the truth and cannot be ignored. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet