Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 341 (PNJ)

Roshani v. Kartar Singh

2006-02-06

MEHTAB S.GILL, UMA NATH SINGH

body2006
Judgment Mehtab S. Gill, J. 1. Criminal Misc. No.40286 of 2005 is allowed. Delay of three days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has argued that the applicant-appellant was assaulted by the respondents-accused and an offence under Sections 354, 323 and 506 IPC was made out against them. Learned trial Court convicted the respondents-accused under Sections 354, 323 and 506 IPC. Against this order, respondents-accused came in appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Learned Additional sessions Judge, Panipat acquitted the respondents-accused. Learned appellate Court wrongly disbelieved the version saying that husband of the applicant-appellant has not been examined. Dr. Harmohan Lal appeared in the witness box as CW1 and corroborated the ocular account. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the learned trial Court and of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Panipat. 4. As per statement of Dr. Harmohan Lal CW1, there were five injuries on the person of the applicant-appellant. Two injuries are abrasions on the right and left wrists and 3rd, 4th and 5th injuries are contusions on the abdomen, thigh and face. Dr. Harmohan Lal CW1 has deposed that the injuries on the person of the complainant could be self suffered or self inflicted and the injuries were of a minor and simple nature. Complainant roshani CW2 stated in her testimony, that she was pushed by respondent no.1, who was drunk at that time. He caused injuries on her face, breasts and other parts of her body. Respondent No.1 also had a knife in his hand. Going through the medical evidence, it comes out that there are no injuries on the breasts of the complainant, nor is there any knife injury. It has further been stated by complainant that respondent No.1 caught hold of her and tried to disrobe her. Clothes, which at that time must have been torn, have not been produced by the complainant. Medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. Dismissed.