Crl. Misc.No.275-MA of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. 275-MA of 2009
Date of decision: 6.8.2009
Harjit Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the applicant.
Rajan Gupta, J.
Appellant Harjit Kaur filed a complaint under Sections 323,
504, 380 and 354 IPC against the respondent. After recording the
preliminary evidence, respondent was ordered to be summoned for the
aforesaid offences. After appreciating the pre-charge evidence, learned
trial court charge-sheeted the respondent for the offence punishable
under Section 354 IPC only. The appellant again appeared as CW1 and
also produced her husband Paramjit Singh (CW2).
After appreciating the entire evidence, the trial court came
to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to substantiate the
charge levelled against the respondent. The complaint was thus
dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the instant
appeal along with an application bearing Crl. Misc. No.275-MA of 2009
under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal.
Crl. Misc.No.275-MA of 2009 2
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
Magistrate ignored from consideration cogent evidence on record to
prove the guilt of the respondent. He has further submitted that the
statement of the appellant (complainant) has been corroborated by CW2
i.e. her husband. He then submits that the learned trial court erred in
acquitting the accused by observing that there was material
contradictions in the statements of complainant and her husband.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
After having re-scanned the entire evidence, this court is of
the view that the finding of the trial court in discarding the case of the
appellant (complainant) is not perverse on any count. It is not possible
to take a different view on the basis of available evidence. It is evident
that the appellant herself had stepped into the witness-box as CW1 and
examined her husband as CW2, who are related witnesses. The
complainant had failed to produce any other witness in support of the
allegations levelled by her in the complaint. Moreover, the alleged
occurrence is said to have taken place on 14th of August, 2002, but the
complaint was lodged on 22nd October, 2002 i.e. after more than two
months. The complainant was unable to explain the delay in lodging the
complaint. This apart, Paramjit Singh CW2, who is husband of the
appellant, has admitted during his cross-examination that there were
ongoing financial dealings between the parties since 1990. Moreover,
the complainant failed to examine the doctor who had examined her and
Crl. Misc.No.275-MA of 2009 3
no medical evidence was brought on the record. There are several
contradictions in the evidence of the complainant-applicant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show
how the evidence has been misappreciated by the court below. There
can be no doubt that there is complete lack of independent corroboration
in the story of the appellant.
It is well settled that the order of acquittal is to be disturbed
only if the same is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable resulting in miscarriage of justice. The case
in hand is not of that type. I, thus, see no good ground to interfere with
the decision appealed against and decline grant of special leave to
appeal.
Consequently, Crl. Misc. No. 275-MA of 2009 is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 06, 2009
‘rajpal’