Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 416 (PNJ)

Nand Kishore v. State of Haryana

2000-04-18

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by Nand Kishore (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohindergarh, dated April 17, 1986 and April 19, 1986 respectively and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dated 25.4.1988. The learned trial Court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal had been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that on 10.8.1983 complainant Smt. Kamla, a resident of village Dongra, had approached the police station alongwith her father-in- law and made a statement that she lived with her husband separately in a house in the village. On the night intervening 31st July and 1st August, 1983 the petitioner came to her house. He had wrapped some back cloth on his body. At that time, she was half asleep and was alone in the house. On hearing footsteps, she asked as to who was there. The petitioner caught hold of her hand. She raised an alarm. In the meantime, Phul Singh Lambardar and Hardayal came to the spot. The petitioner made good his escape. A meeting of the panchayat was called but the petitioner did not appear before the panchayat. It is on these broad facts that report was submitted against the petitioner under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the statement of the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner had entered the house between 10.00 - 11.00 p.m. and outraged the modesty of the complainant. He was held guilty of the offences referred to above. With these findings, the abovesaid order of judgment and sentence followed. 4. He was held guilty of the offences referred to above. With these findings, the abovesaid order of judgment and sentence followed. 4. In the present case, the incident is stated to have taken place on the night intervening 31st July and 1st August, 1983. The report was lodged with the police on 10.8.1983. Admittedly, there is a delay but, indeed, in the peculiar facts, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said delay. This is for the reason that the same has been explained. It is in evidence that firstly the matter was referred to the panchayat of the village. Keeping in view that the matter was before the panchayat, it was obviously thought appropriate not to make a report immediately to the police. 5. Reference in this connection can well be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 501. The importance of recording of the First Information Report at the earliest was explained insisting further that delay in lodging of the First Information Report results in embellishment and some time facts are added which are after-thought. However, the ratio decidendi of the said decision will not help the petitioner. It has already been mentioned above that the matter had earlier been referred to the panchayat. The petitioner did not care to appear when called by the panchayat. When such was the situation, in that event, the complainant at that stage thought it appropriate to report the matter and lodged the First Information Report. In the peculiar facts, therefore, the delay will not prove fatal. 6. The prosecution case basically rests on the statement of the complainant. She undoubtedly and unhesitatingly supported the version of the prosecution. Since she has alone in the house, it will not be appropriate to insist on corroboration. If the evidence of the solitary witness is reliable and trustworthy, then no corroboration is required. It is the quality and not quantity of the evidence that matters. 7. Merely because if the families of the petitioner and the complainant were earlier having some litigation by itself is not a ground to reject the statement of the complainant. A respectable lady will not like to put such like version only to take revenge. It is the quality and not quantity of the evidence that matters. 7. Merely because if the families of the petitioner and the complainant were earlier having some litigation by itself is not a ground to reject the statement of the complainant. A respectable lady will not like to put such like version only to take revenge. One is constrained to observe that when the families are not at peace with each other then such a defence is a double edged weapon. It can prompt the petitioner to go to the house of the complainant at the dead of night. In fact, the petitioner was seen running away from the house of the complainant by Phul Singh and Hardayal. Consequently, there is no ground to upset the findings arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. However, the incident is of the year 1983. The petitioner has already undergone more than two weeks of the sentence. Keeping in view the period that has elapsed, it will not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to undergo rest of the sentence. Interest of justice, thus, shall be fully met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. There is no reduction in the quantum of fine. 9. For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed except for the modification of the sentence which is reduced to already undergone. Petition dismissed.