Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 128 (PNJ)

DIL KAUR v. STATE OF HARYANA

2014-01-15

KULDIP SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2014
JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. The prosecutrix/complainant has come up in this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and releasing the accused on probation for offences under Section 323 and 452 IPC, vide judgment dated 03.06.2013, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. Record was called for and the same has been perused. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the case file. 3. We find that the prosecutrix/complainant in this case was 72 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. In her first version given to the police on the next day of crime, she stated that on previous date i.e. 29.04.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused forcibly entered her house and started raising demand of money. On her refusal, the accused gave fist blow on her face and also inflicted injury on her back with danda and kept raising the demand of money. The accused was drunkard. In the said altercation, her earrings were lost. She further disclosed that she had two sons, who are living at Delhi. The accused in this case is aged about 25 years. However, on 05.05.2011, the prosecutrix made supplementary statement, in which she stated that the accused entered her house with bad intention and sat upon her chest and snapped the string of her lehnga and tried to commit rape on her. In the court, she went a step further and stated that she was made naked. In this case, prosecutrix had made the complaint before the police on the next day of the crime. She had got sufficient time to think over and state whatever she wanted to say. She had given the complete details of the occurrence. She was accordingly medico legally examined on 30.04.2011. She was again medico-legally examined on 06.05.2011 by Dr. Agya Rathore, PW9. 4. After examining the file, we are of the view that the stand of the prosecutrix/complainant is that accused was demanding money from her and on her refusal, she was given injuries by fist blow on her face and danda blow on her back. Had the accused any intention to commit rape, he would not have demanded money from her and given fist and danda blows. 5. Had the accused any intention to commit rape, he would not have demanded money from her and given fist and danda blows. 5. Moreover, the complainant is about 72 years of age and accused is 25 years old and the complainant is about the age of grandmother of the accused. Therefore, such attempt to commit rape is otherwise unlikely. It appears that after giving the correct version before the police at the first instance, the complainant tried to exaggerate the facts by alleging the offence of attempt to rape so as to ensure that the accused gets severe punishment. Her first version is trustworthy and was relied upon by the learned trial court. The accused merely entered the house of the prosecutrix/complainant under the influence of liquor and demanded money from her and on her refusal, he gave injuries to her, which were found simple in nature. 6. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the present appellant gave a different version when she first approached the police on 30.04.2011. Then she improved her version on 05.05.2011, wherein she levelled the allegations of attempt to rape. In the court she further improved her version by alleging that accused had also snapped the sting of her lehnga. Therefore, she is not trustworthy. She is of 72 years of age and is the age of grandmother of the accused. Therefore, attempt to commit rape is otherwise unlikely. Therefore, we agree with the reasoning given by the learned trial court and find that the learned trial court did not commit any error, while acquitting the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Since the accused is the first offender and injuries were simple in nature, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court, granting probation to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to reform himself. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.