Sushila Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 1 November, 2017

219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR No.311 of 2015.
Decided on:-01.11.2017.

Sushila Chaudhary.
………Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another
………Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

*****

Present:- Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

HARI PAL VERMA, J.

The petitioner-complainant has filed the present revision petition

against the judgment dated 09.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hisar whereby her appeal against the judgment dated 24.09.2013

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar acquitting the

respondent No.2-accused, was dismissed.

Briefly stated, FIR No.78 dated 22.01.2010 under Sections 294,

323 and 506 IPC was registered against the respondent No.2 Surender Dutt

Kaushik at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar at the behest of the

petitioner-complainant, who was working as Principal, Government Senior

Secondary School, Neoli Kalan, Hisar. As per the FIR, on 22.01.2010 at

about 10.00 A.M., when the petitioner-complainant was working in her office,

1 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:01 :::
CRR No.311 of 2015 -2-

the respondent No.2-accused came to her office in angry mood. He started

abusing the complainant by using vulgar language. He attacked the petitioner

by pulling her hair and pushing her down on the floor. He also gave fist and

kick blows on the chest, stomach and head of the petitioner. However, when

Kuldeep, who was working as class-IV employee, tried to intervene, the

accused pushed him away as well. When the petitioner had come out in the

verandah, the accused again started beating her by putting a shawl over her

face. She was given beatings by more than one person.

After completion of investigation, report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court. The copy of report along with other documents

was supplied to the accused, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding

a prima facie case against the respondent No.2-accused, he was charge-

sheeted under Sections 294, 354, 323 and 506 IPC, to which he did not plead

guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8

witnesses i.e. Kuldeep as PW1, Amar Singh as PW2, Amit Parkash as PW3,

Dr. Tejpal Sharma as PW4, Dr. Prem Singh as PW5, petitioner-complainant

Sushila Chaudhary as PW6, Inspector Naresh Kumar as PW7 and Suresh

Kumar as PW8. Thereafter, statement of respondent No.2-accused was

recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC wherein he denied all the allegations

levelled against him and pleaded innocence. In his defence, he has examined

Amit as DW1 and Subhash as DW2.

Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 24.09.2013 had

acquitted respondent No.2-accused of the charge framed against him as PW1

Kuldeep had denied that on 22.01.2010, an altercation ever took place outside

2 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:03 :::
CRR No.311 of 2015 -3-

the office of the Principal. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel,

he admitted that outside the office of the Principal, some girls belonging to

scheduled caste category were raising slogans against the Principal alleging

that the Principal had made caste remarks against them. Similarly, PW2 Amar

Singh and PW3 Amit Parkash, who were posted as teachers in the school on

22.01.2010, have denied the incident, thus did not support the case of the

prosecution.

PW5 Dr. Prem Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hisar

submitted an affidavit Ex.PW5/A along with medico-legal report of the

petitioner-complainant. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that

injuries No.1 to 3, 6 and 7 were superficial in nature and he cannot comment

on injuries No.4 and 5. He has further stated that duration of injuries No.4 and

5 could not be exactly fixed in this case and possibility of receipt of injuries

mentioned in the MLR cannot be ruled out in scuffling with some crowd and

beating by a mob with slap etc. after covering the face.

Even the petitioner-complainant, who appeared in the witness

box as PW6, has admitted that neither she informed the police about the

incident nor to her senior officer i.e. District Education Officer. However, she

has denied that she has ever made any caste remarks.

DW1 Amit Kumar has deposed that the petitioner has falsely

implicated the accused in this case because the behaviour of the petitioner

was not cordial towards the students of the school and it is due to this reason,

she was transferred on administrative ground.

Learned trial Court has found that the injuries reflected on the

person of the petitioner-complainant are superficial in nature and can be

3 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:03 :::
CRR No.311 of 2015 -4-

sustained due to scuffling with the crowd and beatings given by mob etc.

Even the complainant got herself medico-legally examined after a delay of six

hours. The matter was neither reported to the police nor to the authorities.

Against acquittal of the respondent No.2-accused, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the Court of Session, but the said appeal was

dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated

09.12.2014.

On this account, the petitioner has filed the present revision

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has argued that

the Courts below have committed legal error in not appreciating the evidence

produced by the petitioner. She has appeared in the witness box as PW6 and

narrated the entire incident. PW5 Dr. Prem Singh has also corroborated the

injuries suffered by her. The petitioner has specifically deposed about the role

played by the respondent No.2-accused while committing the offence. In fact,

the co-teachers did not support the prosecution version and the Courts below

have wrongly relied upon the cross-examination of hostile witnesses.

He has further contended that the offence under Section 354 IPC

is such that only the victim can ascertain the nature of person and the manner

in which the person had assaulted or touched or made the obscenity faced by

her and nobody can else determine this fact. He has further contended that the

impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside and

respondent No.2 is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence

committed by him.

4 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:03 :::
CRR No.311 of 2015 -5-

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has

argued that no interference is warranted in the well-reasoned judgments

passed by the Courts below. The judgments are based on evidence as led by

the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

At the outset, it would be relevant to mention here that there are

concurrent findings given by the Courts below in favour of the respondent

No.2. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is vested with limited powers.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Johar and others Versus M/s Mangal Prasad and

another, 2008(3) SCC 423 while dealing with the scope of revisional

jurisdiction, has observed as under:

“17. The approach of the High Court to the entire case
cannot be appreciated. The High Court should have kept in mind
that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it exercises a limited
power. Its jurisdiction to entertain a revision application,
although is not barred, but severally restricted, particularly
when it arises from a judgment of acquittal.”

In Venkatesan Versus Rani and another 2013(4) RCR

(Criminal) 919, the Apex Court has held that while examining an order of

acquittal, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts is extremely limited

and the same should be exercised only in case where the trial Court had

committed a manifest error of law or procedure or had overlooked and

ignored relevant and material evidence. The language of Section 401 Cr.P.C.

makes it amply clear that there is no power vested in the High Court to

5 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:03 :::
CRR No.311 of 2015 -6-

convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The relevant paragraph

No.7 of the said judgment reads as under:

“7. The above consideration would go to show that the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts while examining an
order of acquittal is extremely narrow and ought to be exercised
only in cases where the Trial Court had committed a manifest
error of law or procedure or had overlooked and ignored
relevant and material evidence thereby causing miscarriage of
justice. Re-appreciation of evidence is an exercise that the High
Court must refrain from while examining an order of acquittal in
the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Code.
Needless to say, if within the limited parameters, interference of
the High Court is justified the only course of action that can be
adopted is to order a re-trial after setting aside the acquittal. As
the language of Section 401 of the Code makes it amply clear
there is no power vested in the High Court to convert a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction.”

Moreover, perusal of the record reveals that there is a variation in

the statement of petitioner-complainant herself. While appearing in the

witness box as PW6, she has deposed that on 22.01.2010, the incident had

occurred at 10.00 AM when she was present in her office and the accused

came there and misbehaved with her on the pretext of not noting the order

dated 21.01.2010. The accused pulled her down from her chair and gave fist

and kick blows on her chest, stomach and head. She has also deposed that she

was given beatings by a number of people by putting a shawl on her face. The

incident was witnessed by PW1 Kuldeep. Interestingly, said Kuldeep has not

supported the version of the prosecution and, therefore, he was declared as

hostile. The other co-teachers, namely, PW2 Amar Singh and PW3 Amit

6 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:03 :::
CRR No.311 of 2015 -7-

Parkash have also not supported the prosecution version, rather, they have

specifically stated that no altercation took place between the petitioner and the

accused.

It is settled law that the prosecution is required to prove its case

beyond all probabilities. The accused is considered to be innocent unless

proved guilty by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence. However, in the

present case, the petitioner-complainant has not been able to prove his case

against the respondent beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The petitioner-

complainant has also not been able to prove that in what manner, impugned

judgments passed by the Courts below suffer from illegality, irregularity or

perversity which may warrant interference of this Court by invoking its

revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal dated 24.09.2013 passed

by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar as well as judgment dated

09.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar are affirmed

and the present revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
November 01, 2017 JUDGE
Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether Reportable: No

7 of 7
06-11-2017 23:14:03 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *