SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bala Devi vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 17 July, 2018

CRR-4454-2015 -1-


Date of decision:-17.7.2018

Smt.Bala Devi


State of Haryana and another


Present: Mr.Lalit K.Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate
for the respondent No.2.



This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated

20.8.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala

dismissing the appeal as well as judgment dated 27.10.2014 passed by

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala acquitting respondent No.2 of the

charge framed against him.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 7.5.2010 at

about 9:00 p.m., while the complainant was cleaning the utensils near

door of her house and her husband was sleeping inside, then accused

1 of 5
22-07-2018 15:44:28 :::
CRR-4454-2015 -2-

Parveen Kumar came there, caught hold of the complainant from her

breasts and started giving her filthy abuses. Hearing hues and cries of the

complainant, her husband Amrik came to that place and on seeing him,

accused ran away from the spot. The matter was reported to the police and

formal FIR was registered. The case was investigated. Accused Parveen

Kumar was arrested in that case. After completion of investigation and

other formalities, challan against accused was prepared and filed in the


On presentation of challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Ambala, copies of documents relied upon in the challan were

supplied to the accused free of cost as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala finding that

charge for offence under Section 354 IPC was disclosed against the

accused, charge-sheeted the accused for the said offences, to which, he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of its evidence, the prosecution had

examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Bala Devi, PW2

Amrik Singh, PW3 SI Rajpal Singh, PW4 EASI Ramesh Chander, PW5

ESI Surjit Singh, PW6 Jasmer Ram and PW7 SI Swarn Ram.

As the prosecution failed to conclude its evidence despite

availing ample opportunities, the same was closed by Court order.

Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. in which the accused while denying the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him submitted that he was innocent and

had been falsely involved in the case.

2 of 5
22-07-2018 15:44:28 :::
CRR-4454-2015 -3-

Accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing arguments, the learned trial Court had acquitted

the accused of the charge framed against him mainly for the following


(i) There being delay of almost six days in reporting the

matter to the police inasmuch as the incident had taken

place on 7.5.2010, whereas the FIR was got registered

on 13.5.2010 and there being no satisfactory

explanation for the delay rendered by the prosecution.

(ii)PW1 complainant Bala Devi stating that a Panchayat

had been convened in this case but then no member of

Panchayat or other respectable person from the village

community stepped into the witness-box to say that.

(iii)The parties are related inter se inasmuch as the

complainant is aunt of the accused, whereas the

accused is nephew of the complainant and there being

civil litigation pending between the extended families

regarding some property, which could be the motive

for the complainant to file a false complaint against the


(iv)As per prosecution story, the husband of the

complainant was sleeping inside the house when the

incident took place and he had come out after hearing

hues and cries of complainant but the complainant in

her cross-examination stated that when the incident

3 of 5
22-07-2018 15:44:28 :::
CRR-4454-2015 -4-

took place, she was all alone in the house and nobody

was there not even her husband. This is a great

contradiction between the two versions.

(v) PW6 Jasmer Ram(independent witness) stating in his

cross-examination that he had not seen the incident and

whatever he had stated was on the basis of what he

heard from others.

(vi)Non-joining of independent witness during

investigation and trial.

(vii)The testimony of complainant suffering from inherent

contradictions and lapses.

(viii)The presence at the spot of Amreek Singh, husband

of complainant at the relevant time to be highly


(ix)The prosecution being unable to prove its charge

against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

When this judgment was challenged in appeal, learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

judgment passed by the trial Court, which left the complainant aggrieved

and she has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision

petition, notice of which was issued to the respondents, who put in

appearance through counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

4 of 5
22-07-2018 15:44:28 :::
CRR-4454-2015 -5-

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala took into

consideration all aspects while affirming the judgment of the trial Court

and dismissing the appeal. The legal position has been kept in mind while

reaching that conclusion.

The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this

Court is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is an

illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed

by a Court below or the same is perverse and not otherwise.

In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the

judgments passed by the Courts below, the same are upheld and the

revision is found to be without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Necessary information be sent to the quarter concerned.

17.7.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
22-07-2018 15:44:28 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation