CRR-777-2019 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-777-2019 (OM)
Date of Decision: 13.02.2020
Sikander Singh
…. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: – Mr. BS Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel is taken on
record. Be tagged at the appropriate place.
Through this revision, petitioner-accused has laid challenge
to judgment dated 15.02.2019 of lower Appellate Court, dismissing his
appeal thereby, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the trial Court dated dated 31.05.2013, whereby he was held
guilty under Section 377 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of `6000/-. It was
also ordered that victim is entitled to a compensation of `5000/- under
Section 357(1) Cr.P.C., out of fine amount of `6000/-, if, realized, subject
1 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -2-
to decision of revision, if any. Jagsir Singh, co-accused of petitioner who
was summoned as an additional accused by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Briefly, petitioner-Sikandar Singh, was sent to face trial in
case FIR No. 110 dated 02.09.2007, under Sections 377 and 511 IPC ,
Police Station Sadar, Mansa and charge-sheeted as such, on the
allegations that in the night of 01.09.2007, petitioner committed carnal
intercourse with complainant-Harjit Singh, after removing his pant and
underwear, taking him in school compound.
After holding trial, learned trial Court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner in the manner as narrated above, vide judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2013.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached Ist Appellate
Court, who after hearing both the sides, dismissed his appeal affirming
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, vide impugned
judgment dated 15.02.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
life of spermatozoa is only 72 hours. The occurrence allegedly took
place in the night of 01.09.2007, whereas sample to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) was sent on 10.09.2017 i.e., after expiry of life period
of spermatozoa. Thus, link evidence was missing. Both the Courts
below failed to appreciate that as per prosecution story, petitioner
forcibly took away complainant in school compound by jumping over the
wall which is highly improbable and un-believable for the reason that it is
2 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -3-
difficult to forcibly drag or take away such a fully build matured young
boy of the age of 16 years. As per prosecution story, the doctor had
sealed the swabs taken from anus of complainant with the seal having
impression ‘DKJ’, but as per FSL report, the samples received by it did
not contain aforesaid seal impression. That apart, there were major
contradictions in the statements of complainant and prosecution
witnesses, inasmuch as, the complainant in his initial statement as PW-5
testified that the shop from where he had gone to take sugar in the night
time on the alleged date, falls in between his house and the school.
Complainant did not disclose the reason for his going to school ahead of
the said shop. Contrary to it, in his subsequent statement, the
complainant made a somersault, testifying that he was caught by
petitioner before reaching the shop and was taken to school compound
forcibly. In his initial statement, complainant testified that he became
un-conscious and remained as such on the following day also, but in his
subsequent statement, he testified that he was very much conscious at the
time of alleged un-natural carnal intercourse and also thereafter. PW-2
Prem Singh father of complainant testified that they had gone to hospital
on motorcycle, whereas complainant as PW-5 testified that he had gone
to hospital on tempo, because of his inability to sit on motorcycle. Both
the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner on account of
missing of link evidence and above major contradiction. In support of
his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of Apex Court in Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of
3 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -4-
(NCT) of Delhi, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 345 and of this Court in
Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 517.
On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly refuting
the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-6
Head Constable Basant Singh, carrier of samples to the FSL Authorities
specifically testified that at the time of delivery of samples to FSL, the
same were un-tampered and intact with seal bearing impressions ‘DKJ’
affixed by the doctor. Medical evidence supported the prosecution story
in its entirety.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions, this Court finds the instant revision completely devoid of
any merit for the reasons to follow:
No question of law much less substantial has been raised in
this revision.
This Court, while exercising its revisional powers, has very
limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) when the Courts
below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not
exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show
any such infirmities in the judgments of both the Courts below.
It is impossible and un-believable that a young person of the
age of 16 years would put or jeopardize his own reputation at stake, by
levelling false allegations of his carnal intercourse by the petitioner.
Rather, in such cases, the victim always tries to hide the offence
4 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -5-
committed with him by someone. Considering this aspect of the matter,
when complainant-Harjit Singh, as PW-5 twice in Court repeatedly
testified against the petitioner that in the night of 01.09.2007, petitioner
had committed carnal intercourse with him, he cannot be disbelieved.
As soon as, the victim testified against the petitioner in
Court, other infirmities pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner
qua sending of samples of spermatozoa late by 9 days to the FSL by the
police, non-taking of samples of spermatozoa of the petitioner and
contradiction in the statement of complainant loses its significance,
inasmuch as, they relate to insignificant aspect of the case.
More so, the fact cannot be lost sight that the alleged
occurrence took place on 01.09.2007, whereas initial deposition of
complainant for the first time was recorded after one year i.e. in 2008 and
thereafter, for the second time in the year 2012, i.e. after around 5 years.
No body is perfect in this imperfect world. Minor contradictions relate to
insignificant aspect of the case are bound to occur in the narration of even
truthful witnesses.
The complainant in his deposition unambiguously narrated
the entire incident beyond any shadow of doubt about carnal intercourse
with him by the petitioner, testifying that before he reached the shop from
where he had to take sugar, he was caught hold by the petitioner and was
dragged/taken away to the school compound. Thereafter, making him
naked, petitioner committed un-natural carnal intercourse with him.
I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the Courts
5 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -6-
below and find no illegality or perversity in the same.
The instant revision, being completely devoid of any merit, is
dismissed.
February 13, 2020 (RAMENDRA JAIN)
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
