Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bindro Devi vs Sh. Sat Pal Singh & Another on 7 May, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No.157 of 2009
Date of Decision : 7.5.2016
.
Smt. Bindro Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
Sh. Sat Pal Singh & another ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent
rt : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral)
By way of present Criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment dated 4.8.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jawali, District Kangra H.P, whereby accused persons have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") is that she filed a private complaint before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, District Kangra on 24.8.2006 against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "accused").
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP...2...
3. Perusal of the complaint suggests that the complainant is working as Khalasi in the Northern Railway Station, .
Jawali, District Kangra, HP. On 15th July, 2006. She was deputed by the Railway Department to deliver urgent Dak at Palampur. When she after delivering the Dak at Palampur came back to her house at village Khattee by train, just 150 meters away from her of house, accused Sat Pal, who was standing holding goat in his hand, other accused No.2 namely Kaku suddenly appeared and struck her elbow with a wooden stick and gave beatings to her.
rt Due to which she fell down on the earth and in the meantime accused No.2 showered some blows and beaten her with wooden stick, which resulted simple injuries to her person.
Complainant further alleged that the accused persons tore her clothes and tried to outrage her modesty. Complainant further stated that she managed to escape herself from the clutches of the accused persons and reported the matter to the Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter also reported the matter to Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, on 16.7.2006 she reported the matter to the Pradhan but she did not take any action and thereafter finally on 21.7.2006, she reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Jawali but no action was taken against the accused persons and she was compelled ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...3...
to file private complaint before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, District Kangra, HP.
.
4. Perusal of the record of trial Court suggests that after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant, learned trial court proceeded against the accused persons under Sections 323, 354,504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Court below of summoned the accused and supplied copy of the complaint to the accused persons and recorded their statement as envisaged under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
rt
5. Court after recording the aforesaid statement came to the conclusion that prima-facie case exists against the accused and court proceeded to frame charge for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against them.
Accordingly, accused were charge sheeted. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Complainant with a view to prove her case examined two witnesses, whereas statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they denied the averments of the complaint in toto.
However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP...4...
7. Learned court below after framing points for determination, examined evidence available on record and .
acquitted the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Jawali, complainant filed instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Perusal of rt the averments contained in the plaint filed by the complainant suggest that alleged incident took place on 15th July, 2006 when allegedly accused persons gave beatings to the complainant but admittedly matter was reported to the police on 21.7.2006, definitely after six days of alleged occurrence. However, complainant has specifically averred in the plaint that after escaping herself from the clutches of the accused persons, she went to the Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter reported the matter to the Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.
As per her statement on 16th July, 2006, she again reported the matter to the Pradhan but she expressed her inability to take any action. Thereafter on 21st July, 2006, matter was reported to the police of police Station, Jawali. However, no action was taken ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...5...
against the accused persons compelling her to file the instant complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jawali.
.
9. Careful perusal of the evidence brought on record by the complainant suggest that no evidence worth the name be it ocular or documentary, has been placed on record to suggest that after alleged occurrence on 15th July, 2006 she had of reported the matter to the Ward member of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter to Up-Pradhan. Admittedly, in the present case, neither Up-Pradhan nor the Pradhan has been rt examined by the complainant in support of her version that she had actually reported the matter to the Pradhan, who expressed inability to take any action against the accused persons.
Aforesaid omission on the part of the complainant certainly compels this Court to draw adverse inference with regard to the reliability of the story put forth in the complaint by the complainant.
10. Moreover, it also remains unexplained that what prevented her for almost six days to lodge a complaint before the police station, Jawali. Admittedly, in the present case incident occurred on 15th July, 2006 and matter was reported on 21st July, 2006 at police Station, Jawali. Aforesaid fact assumes significance especially in view of the fact that as per own statement of the complainant she being employee in Railway department, works ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...6...
in the railway station Jawali, meaning thereby she had been daily visiting Jawali to serve the Railway department.
.
11. No explanation worth the name has come on record that why during these six days she failed to lodge the complaint before the police, which she actually filed on 21st July, 2006. As per her averment contained in the plaint, she had reported the of matter to Ward member of Gram Panchayat on 15th July, 2006 itself and thereafter on 16th July, 2006 to the Up-Pradhan but no action was taken against the accused. If the aforesaid version of rt the complainant is taken to be correct, it certainly remains unexplained that as to why she did not lodge the complaint to the police on 16th July 2016 when Pradhan expressed her inability to take any action against the accused. This delay of six days in lodging the FIR in the given facts and circumstances of the case indicates that story put forth by the complainant is not trust worthy and perusal of the record also suggests that the complainant has miserably failed to place on record any evidence be it ocular or documentary, which could suggest that she was beaten up by the accused persons and she had taken medical aid immediately after the incident from any Doctor.
12. In this case at the first hand, there is no independent witness, who could support the version of the complaint that she was actually beaten by the accused persons on the date of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...7...
occurrence. If at all any injuries were caused to her by the accused she must have gone to some Doctor to have/get .
medical treatment for the injuries caused by the alleged beatings given by accused. However, in the present case, no medical evidence worth the name has been placed on record to substantiate that she suffered injuries due to the beatings given by of the accused persons. Moreover, no doctor, who could prove the injuries, was examined by the complainant during the trial.
Complainant specifically alleged that the accused persons had rt used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty and torn her clothes but there is no evidence on record. As has been said above, no independent witness has been brought on record to suggest that actually alleged incident occurred on the given date because admittedly complainant did not report the matter to the police for almost six days, which really creates doubt with regard to genuineness and authenticity of story put forth by the complainant. If at all there was an attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, there was no occasion to her to wait for six days for lodging FIR, especially when the pradhan had refused to intervene in the matter. Moreover, complainant has failed to place on record the torn clothes, which were allegedly torn up by the accused persons. As has been observed, there is no medical evidence brought on record by the complainant to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...8...
substantiate her allegation that criminal force was used by the accused persons with an intent to outrage her modesty. Though .
there are allegations that injuries were caused but no medical evidence worth the name is available on the record either in the shape of medico legal certificate or in the shape of the testimony of any doctor, who gave her medical treatment after the alleged of incident. Section 354 IPC makes it incumbent upon the complainant to prove that an attempt was made to outrage her modesty by using criminal force. Section 354 IPC reads as under:-
rt"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
13. Plain reading of Section 354 of IPC reproduced hereinabove suggests that it is essential for bringing accused within the ambit of section 354 IPC, to prove that criminal force is used on any woman that too with an intent to outrage her modesty or in other way whoever assaults or uses criminal force on woman, knowing fully well ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...9...
thereby that he will be outraging her modesty, shall be liable for punishment prescribed under this section.
.
14. In the present case, evidence available on record, nowhere suggest that accused persons used criminal force to either assault the complainant or outrage her modesty because as per the averment of contained in the complaint, that on 15.7.2006, when the complainant reached at about 150 meters away from her house, accused Sat Pal, who was standing holding goat in rt his hand and another accused No.2 namely Kaku suddenly appeared and struck her elbow with a wooden stick and thereafter beatings were given to her. Definitely, reading of the complaint, nowhere suggests that accused Sat Pal, who was allegedly standing holding goat in his hand actually played some role in the alleged incident. As far as another accused is concerned, there is no specific allegation that the accused persons tore her clothes and tried to outrage her modesty. But as per admission of the complainant that the incident took place at about 150 meters from her house, meaning thereby that, in the event of aforesaid alleged occurrence, she had an occasion/opportunity to raise alarm, at that stage, especially when complainant's house was just 150 meters away from her house. There is no ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...10...
evidence on record to suggest that she actually tried to raise an alarm to get herself escaped from the clutches of .
the accused. It appears to be unbelievable at all that if the attempt is made to outrage the modesty of some woman, that too near the house, she does not raise any alarm. It also appears to be unrealistic that this incident which allegedly of occurred 150 meters away from her house and nobody from that locality actually witnessed/ seen that alleged occurrence. Moreover, as per her own statement of rt complainant on 15.7.2006, when she was coming back to her house after delivering urgent dak at Palampur then alleged occurrence occurred. She has not given specific time that at what time the incident occurred. As has been observed above, that there is no medical evidence on record to substantiate injuries, if any, caused to the complainant nor any torn clothes were placed on record to substantiate that an allegation to outrage the modesty of complainant was made by the accused.
15. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, I have no hesitation to conclude that the story put forth by the complainant does not appear to be trustworthy and her statement does not inspire confidence and, as such, cannot be relied upon in the given facts and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP ...11...
circumstances. Rather story put forth by complainant appears to be unrealistic, concocted one, especially .
omissions of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan from the list of the witnesses relied upon by the complainant in support of her case compels this Court to draw adverse inference.
Admittedly no specific evidence has been brought on of record to suggests that any insult was inflicted upon the complainant or any criminal intimidation was meted out to the complainant. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid rt discussion, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is up held.
The present petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma )
May 7, 2016 Judge.
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:17:51 :::HCHP