IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. A-711-MA of 2015
Date of Decision : December 05, 2018
Yadram ….Applicant
Versus
Satbir ….Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
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.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
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
trial.
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
implicated.
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 )
JUDGE
( ARUN KUMAR TYAGI )
December 05, 2018 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES/NO
Whether reportable : YES/NO
4 of 4
06-01-2019 22:48:28 :::