CR. REVISION NO. 888 OF 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 06, 2009.
Parties Name
Rekha Singh
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Roshan Singh and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Ghangas, Advocate, for Mr. Sunil Panwar,
Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)
ORDER:
On many dates, nobody has put up appearance on behalf of the
petitioner. In the interest of justice, matter was adjourned to February 3,
2009, it continued to be shown in the cause list. Today again none has come
present.
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated
March 10, 2000, vide which respondents No. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the
charges framed against them. It was allegation against the respondents that
on March 14, 1997, both of them had committed rape upon the petitioner.
FIR was recorded at the instance of the petitioner. It was her allegation that
on the above said date, when she was returning to her home, after answering
call of the nature, both the respondents came in her way. Respondent No. 2
CR. REVISION NO. 888 OF 2000 -2-
took out a knife from his pocket and forced her to accompany them to a
nearby wheat field. She tried to rescue herself by hitting the accused with an
empty bottle, in which she had carried water but in vain. She had no option
except to accompany the accused to a nearby field, where both of them
committed rape upon her turn by turn. Before leaving her, they threatened
the petitioner to kill her, in case she dared to disclose the incident to any
person. The petitioner narrated above said facts to her sister-in-law. Her
husband was called and then both of them went to the Police Station and on
her statement, FIR No. 115 dated March 14, 1997, was registered against
the respondents No. 1 and 2 for commission of offences under Sections
376/506/34 IPC. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were arrested and after
completing investigation, final report was put in Court for trial.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 were charge-sheeted to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 12 witnesses
in Court and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.
On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of respondents No.1 and
2 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing
on record was put to them, which they denied, pleaded innocence and false
implication. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Court on appraisal of evidence as led by the parties,
came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the
respondents beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, vide
judgment under challenge, they were acquitted of the charges framed
against them. In grounds of appeal, it is case of the petitioner that the trial
Court has erred in acquitting respondents No. 1 and 2. Case against them
was fully proved on record and by giving importance to minor
CR. REVISION NO. 888 OF 2000 -3-
contradictions here and there, they have wrongly been acquitted. Prayer is to
quash judgment under challenge, convict and sentence respondents No. 1
and 2 of the charges levelled against them.
Counsel for respondent No. 2 has brought it to our notice that
the State has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment.
On perusal of contents of the paper book, this Court is of the
opinion that no interference is possible in the judgment under challenge at
the instance of the petitioner. The trial Court has noticed that the prosecutrix
was a married woman. She had two children. Her age was about 25 years.
When she was examined by the doctor, no abrasion was found on her
buttocks or back. The trial Court has also noticed that she has made various
improvements in her statement and further that as per report of Forensic
Science Laboratory, no human semen was detected on the clothes of the
prosecutrix or the accused. It has also come on record that knife, which was
used to put the petitioner under threat, was not recovered. There is no
evidence on record that the petitioner’s mouth was gagged and as such she
was not in a position to raise an alarm. The trial Court has rightly noticed
that the defence evidence led by respondents No. 1 and 2 inspires
confidence. Even real sister of the petitioner has deposed against her. The
defence has brought on record various letters written by the prosecutrix
stating therein that for money, she can bear any type of insult. It has also
come on record that litigation is pending between the parties and on account
of that, false implication of respondents No. 1 and 2 was possible. The facts
are such that the view taken by the trial Court was possible.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri
v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a
CR. REVISION NO. 888 OF 2000 -4-
case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be
adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa
Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) page 775, while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal, has opined as under:-
“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)
SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against
acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal
were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and
merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a
different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the judgment,
under challenge, is perverse or based on misreading of evidence on record.
For the reasons, mentioned above, this revision petition fails
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
February 06, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge