SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Yadram vs Satbir on 5 December, 2018


Criminal Misc. A-711-MA of 2015
Date of Decision : December 05, 2018

Yadram ….Applicant

Satbir ….Respondent


Present : Mr. Lalit Narang, Advocate for
Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate
for the applicant.

Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the respondent.


The complainant has filed the present application under

Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking

special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13.1.2015

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal, whereby

the accused, namely, Satbir was acquitted of the charge under

Section 377 IPC.

According to the complainant, on 27.3.2008 at about

2.00 p.m. his daughter, who was aged four years, was playing in

the house of the accused with other children. The accused then

1 of 4
06-01-2019 22:48:27 :::
Criminal Misc. A-711-MA of 2015 -2-

took her inside a room and after removing her underwear, inserted

his finger in her vagina due to which she started bleeding and

crying. When she returned home, she narrated the incident to her

mother. The incident was witnessed by complainant’s son Gulshan

who had brought her to the house. When the complainant

informed other persons about the incident, the accused confessed

his guilt. The complainant went to the Police Station and got

registered FIR No.62 dated 28.3.2008 under Section 377 IPC. The

victim was taken to Civil Hospital, Palwal for medical examination.

However, due to pressure, the police did not take any action in the

case and, accordingly, the present complaint was filed.

After recording the preliminary evidence, learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal summoned the accused to face trial

under Section 377 IPC. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant

examined himself as CW1, Dharamwati as CW2, Harlal as CW3 and

Dr. Usha Mathur as CW4. The accused was, thereafter, charged

under Section 377 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed


In post-charge evidence, the accused cross-examined

CW1 Yadram and CW2 Dharamwati. However, CW3 Harlal was not

presented for further cross-examination.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused

2 of 4
06-01-2019 22:48:28 :::
Criminal Misc. A-711-MA of 2015 -3-

denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and claimed that he had been falsely


In his defence, the accused examined DW1 Lattur, DW2

Netram and DW3 Inspector Bijender Singh.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on

going through the evidence, learned trial court came to the

conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove his case beyond

reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused was entitled to the

benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he was acquitted of the charge

against him.

From the medical evidence brought on record by way of

the testimony of Dr. Usha Mathur, it is apparent that neither there

was any bleeding from the private parts of the victim nor any injury

found on other parts of her body. The hymen of the victim was

found intact. Though vaginal swabs were taken and sent to the

Forensic Science Laboratory yet the complainant did not produce

any report from the said laboratory.

Neither the complainant, who stepped into the witness

box as CW1 nor his wife CW2 Dharamwati were present at the time

of the alleged incident. According to them, they had been informed

by their son Gulshan about the incident. However, no attempt was

3 of 4
06-01-2019 22:48:28 :::
Criminal Misc. A-711-MA of 2015 -4-

made to produce Gulshan before the trial Court in support of the

ocular account. CW3 Harlal was examined in pre-charge evidence.

In his cross-examination he stated that the incident had not

happened in his presence. He was, however, not presented before

the learned trial Court while post-charge evidence was being led.

In view of the above, no case is made out for any

interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal.

The application is without any merit and, therefore,

dismissed. Special leave to appeal is declined.

( T.P.S. MANN )

December 05, 2018 JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : YES/NO

Whether reportable : YES/NO

4 of 4
06-01-2019 22:48:28 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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