CRR-125-2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-125-2013
Date of decision:-8.8.2018
Dharambir
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Ms.Deepa Jain, Advocate for
Mr.Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated
20.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide
which he had dismissed an appeal against judgment of conviction dated
4.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 7.11.2011 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, vide which he had convicted accused
Dharambir for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to further
1 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:34 :::
CRR-125-2013 -2-
undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under
Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen for the offence under Section
354 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The accused-convict – Dharambir, who is the petitioner
before this Court prays that the revision be accepted, the impugned
judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal and judgment in appeal passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal be set aside and he be acquitted of the
charge framed against him.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution
story are that the complainant Pushpa Devi wife of Sh.Ram Parshad,
resident of Nai Basti, Samshabad, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad had
brought a criminal complaint under Sections 148, 323, 452, 354, 506, 341
504 read with Section 149 IPC against the accused Dharambir,
Bhawani Shankar, Mahesh Chand, Mukesh, Smt.Mamta and Om Dutt on
the allegations that her husband Ram Parshad has been working as a
Teacher at Hindu Senior Secondary School, Ballabgarh; that on 11.8.2004
at about 8:00/8:30 p.m. when she was all alone at home, then accused
Dharambir entered her room with wrong intention; that Bhawani Shankar
also followed him; that both of them started doing obscene acts with her;
that they hugged her; that Dharambir caught hold of her breast, whereas
Bhawani Shankar put her on the bed after pulling her hairs; that in the
meanwhile, her husband Ram Parshad arrived at the spot. According to
2 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:35 :::
CRR-125-2013 -3-
the complainant, she had raised noise, as such, accused ran away from the
spot. However, after some time accused Dharambir and Bhawani Shankar
accompanied by their co-accused, namely, Mahesh Chand, Mukesh,
Mamta and Om Dutt again reached their home and they started assaulting
her husband; that at that time Dharambir and Bhawani Shankar were
armed with iron rods, Mukesh with a knife, Mamta and Om Dutt with
sticks; that Bhawani Shankar had given an iron rod blow to Ram Parshad
hitting him on head, Dharambir gave an iron rod blow hitting Ram
Parshad on his hands, Om Dutt and Mukesh gave stick blows to Ram
Parshad; that when the complainant intervened, then Dharambir gave an
iron rod blow to her hitting her on head, Bhawani Shankar gave an iron
rod blow hitting her on legs, whereas Mukesh and Mamta took her in a
grass; that the complainant and her husband were given severe beatings;
that Mukesh had put a knife on the neck of Ram Parshad threatening to
kill him. According to the complainant, she and her husband raised noise,
hearing which, another person by the name of Ram Parshad and Parmod
came there and rescued them from the clutches of accused; that the
accused left the spot giving threat to kill the complainant and her
husband; that subsequently the complainant and her husband went to
Police Post Camp, Palwal but no action was taken. Therefore, the
complainant had filed a private complaint in the Court of law.
After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were
ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 354, 452 and
506 read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated 15.4.2010. Subsequently,
the complainant made a statement in the Court on 11.6.2011 that she did
3 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:35 :::
CRR-125-2013 -4-
not want to prosecute Bhawani Shankar, as such, proceedings against him
were dropped.
During the course of pre-charge evidence, the complainant
Pushpa Devi got her own statement recorded as CW1 and her husband
Ram Parshad has appeared as CW2. They placed on record copy of
medico legal report of Ram Parshad as Mark-A and copy of medico legal
report of Pushpa as Mark-B.
After hearing arguments, charge for the offences under
Sections 323, 354 and 506 IPC was framed against accused Dharambir,
whereas charge for the offences under Sections 323 506 read with
Section 34 IPC was framed against the remaining accused, to which, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During post charge evidence, accused subjected CW1 Pushpa
Rani, CW2 Ram Parshad to further cross-examination, whereas the
complainant had examined CW3 Dr.Tek Chand, who proved copy of
medico legal report of Ram Parshad as Ex.CW3/A and copy of medico
legal report of Smt.Pushpa as Ex,CW3/B.
With that the post charge evidence of the complainant stood
closed.
Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against
them were put to them but they denied the allegations contending that
they are innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
In defence evidence, the accused tendered copy of
compromise dated 24.9.2004 as Ex.D1 and copy of judgment dated
4 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:35 :::
CRR-125-2013 -5-
15.2.2011 as Ex.D2.
After hearing arguments, learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Palwal acquitted accused Mahesh, Mukesh, Mamta and Om
Dutt, whereas convicted and sentenced the accused Dharambir as
mentioned supra.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant Pushpa Devi had filed an
appeal against acquittal of Mahesh, Mukesh, Mamta and Om Dutt,
whereas Dharambir accused convict had filed appeal with regard to his
conviction and sentence. Both the appeals filed by the complainant
Pushpa Devi and accused Dharambir were dismissed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide a consolidated judgment dated
20.12.2012, which left petitioner – accused Dharambir aggrieved and he
has filed the present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused-
convict and learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana
besides going through the record and I find that there is no merit in the
revision petition.
In the instant case, the complainant has been able to prove
her case against Dharambir by bringing sufficient oral and documentary
evidence, in the form of her own statement appearing as CW1 and that of
her husband as CW2. Both of them deposed in a natural and convincing
manner as regards accused Dharambir. Although both these witnesses
were cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused but they stuck to
their guns and could not be shattered on any material part. A few minor
contradictions and variations in their statements do not go to the root of
5 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:35 :::
CRR-125-2013 -6-
matter since those are bound to occur due to difference in power of
perception, observation and retention of events in various persons and so
also due to lapse of memory due to passage of time etc. The fact cannot
be lost sight of that different persons have got variable memorization of
the events. Merely because a witness slipped at a few places regarding the
minute details does not go to put a question mark over his credibility and
truthfulness. These minor variations and contradictions rather go to show
that the witnesses have deposed in a natural and truthful manner unlike
tutored witnesses who depose in a parrot like manner. I find presence at
the spot of both the witnesses to be likely and probable and account given
by both of them to be worthy of reliance.
No satisfactory or plausible explanation could be given by
Dharambir for his alleged false implication in this case. Further the
complainant Pushpa Devi would not have invited social stigma on her
name without any rhyme or reason. Since the incident had happened at
the house of the complainant, the complainant and her husband were the
best witnesses to depose in that regard. The medical evidence duly
corroborates the ocular evidence.
The prosecution had successfully proved its charge against
the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The courts below
were justified in reaching such conclusion. The conviction of the accused
for such offences does not call for any interference.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has prayed
that sentence of the accused – convict be reduced. The Courts below have
been quite lenient with the petitioner with regard to the quantum of
6 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:35 :::
CRR-125-2013 -7-
sentence imposed upon him. No scope for reduction in the sentence is
made out keeping in view the nature of allegations against him. For that
reason, no leniency can be shown to the accused – convict. The request in
that regard is declined.
In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the
judgments passed by the Courts below, as regards the conviction and
sentence part, those are upheld and revision petition is found to be
without any merit and is dismissed accordingly. C.J.M. Palwal to issue re-
arrest warrants of the Revisionist to make him undergo the remaining
sentence.
8.8.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
16-08-2018 00:16:35 :::