CRR-4319-2016 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-4319-2016 (OM)
Date of decision: 25.08.2017
Azad
….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Mr. BS Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant revision petition, order dated 23.08.2016 of
the First Appellate Court, Faridabad, has been challenged, modifying the
judgment of conviction dated 11.06.2013 of the trial Court, thereby
convicting the petitioner under Section 511 read with Section 377 IPC
instead of Section 377 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts
below did not consider the writing Ex. D-1 in between the father of the
petitioner and the complainant-Sham Lal. In fact, there was a money
dispute in between the father of the petitioner and complainant. The
impugned FIR under Section 377 IPC, was falsely got registered against the
petitioner to settle score in the money transaction. The MLR Ex. PW-6/A
signed by PW-6 Dr. Ram Bhagat, was a fabricated document, inasmuch as
the same was prepared in two parts. In the initial part of it, “no external
mark of injury” was shown, but, later on the word “external” was deleted.
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 02-09-2017 15:26:35 :::
CRR-4319-2016 (OM) -2-
Contrary to it, in the second part of it, in connivance with the complainant
“slight reddened and tenderness” was shown in the area around anus,
besides a superficial abrasion in 2 O’clock position which on examination
and insertion of finger was observed painful. More so, there was a delay of
six hours in lodging the FIR which is fatal to the prosecution case.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while pleading the
legality and validity of the impugned judgments of both the Courts below,
has refuted the above submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the instant revision petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties.
5. As far as delay of six hours in lodging the FIR is concerned, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the same was not fatal to the
prosecution. According to the prosecution story, the alleged occurrence
took place around 5.00 P.M. on 28.07.2006. The FIR was registered at
11.30 P.M. PW-3 Sham Lal (complainant), had specifically mentioned in
his complaint (Ex. PW-2/A) that the delay in lodging the FIR occurred on
account of consultation with the neighbourers before lodging the same. The
above fact was also stated by victim PW-5 Brijesh. Even otherwise, in such
type of offence under Section 377 IPC, the honour and reputation of the
family and the victim is at stake. Due deliberations and consultations are
also made before adopting any legal recourse or any criminal action. The
victim, in the instant case, was 5 years old, at the time of occurrence. His
entire life, career and reputation was at stake, therefore, the complainant
(PW-3) being his father, might have deliberated the matter with his
2 of 4
02-09-2017 15:26:37 :::
CRR-4319-2016 (OM) -3-
neighbours and other relatives before lodging the FIR. More so, the
aforesaid delay of six hours in lodging the FIR is quite negligible which
otherwise, does not go to the root cause, more particularly, when the
prosecution has been fully able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond
any shadow of reasonable doubt. The writing Ex. D-1, relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, is nothing, but a waste paper and, thus,
the same has rightly not been discussed and discarded by both the Courts
below. By drawing attention of this Court to the said document, learned
counsel for the petitioner has made a futile effort to create a confusion, but
when he was specifically asked as to why the petitioner did not take the aid
of writing Ex. D-1 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had no
answer.
6. Perusal of MLR Ex. PW-6/A shows that there is no
interpolation or fabrication in the same, inasmuch it was proved by its
author PW-6 Dr. Ram Bhagat. Accordingly, the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner being devoid of any merit are turned down.
7. The prayer for reduction in the sentence of the petitioner is also
declined, because the petitioner has committed a very heinous crime of
carnal intercourse with a minor child of 5 years of age which is a crime
against the society. In the considered opinion of this Court, the sentence
awarded to the petitioner taking into account the nature of offence comitted
by him is on the lower side.
8. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgments of both
the Courts below and find no illegality or perversity in the same. There are
concurrent findings against the petitioner recorded by both the Courts
3 of 4
02-09-2017 15:26:37 :::
CRR-4319-2016 (OM) -4-
below. Accordingly, the instant revision petition, being completely devoid
of any merit, is dismissed.
August 25, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN )
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
02-09-2017 15:26:37 :::