Naresh Kumar vs State of Haryana

M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed by the accused-Petitioner u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, `Cr. P.C.'') prays for quashing the judgment dated 21.9.1990 upholding the conviction of the Petitioner under Sections 354, 325 and 323 I.P.C. The Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months u/s 354 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo RI for one year u/s 325 I.P.C. He has also been ordered to undergo RI for three months under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The version of the prosecution has been disclosed in the FIR which is based on the statement made by Saroj Bala complainant. She had gone to the Police Station alongwith her sister Raksha Rani where she disclosed that her husband Amar Nath and her sister''s husband Sawan Ram were agriculturists who have been cultivating the land for the last more than 25/30 years. In 2-1/2 acres of land, wheat crop was sown. She had gone to the fields to collect fodder on 13.4.1984, when accused Naresh Kumar and his sister were found cutting the wheat crop from their fields. When she raised objection then Naresh Kumar and his sister Sudesh Kumari abused the complainant and her sister. It was alleged that Naresh Kumar threw the complainant on the ground and pressed her breasts and thereby outraged her modesty. He is alleged to have given a tooth-bite on the left cheek of the complainant. Certain allegations of slapping were levelled against Sudesh Kumari. On hearing their cries, one Parbhu Dayal son of Shri Sant Ram and Babu Ram son of Chhitru Ram had reached the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Then a case was registered under Sections 354/506 I.P.C. and the complainant Saroj Bala was sent for medico-legal examination. Three injuries on the person of complainant Saroj Bala were found and injury Nos. 2 and 3 were declared simple in nature. However, the report of injury No. 1 was given on 24.4.1984 which was declared as grievous in nature. Thereafter, the offence under Sections 323/325 IPC was also added. After investigation, challan was presented on 20.9.1984 before the Illeqa Magistrate, Ambala City.

The Magistrate found the Petitioner as well as his sister guilty of offences punishable under Sections 354, 325, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 323, 354 (sic-?), 325 I.P.C. respectively. However, Sudesh Kumari was released on probation by giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the prayer of the Petitioner for the same relief was rejected on the ground that he had acted brutally by causing permanent disfigurement of the face of complainant Saroj Bala and outraged her modesty. His prayer for bail was also declined.

Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala by upholding his conviction on merits. It was been held that the statement of PW-2 Saroj Bala complainant find corroboration from the statement of PW-3 Raksha Rani, her sister. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala found that the occurrence could not be considered to be false as there was ample evidence showing that Sudesh Kumari accused had also suffered injury on the same day. Moreover, the complainant had suffered permanent disfigurement of her face as there was ample medical evidence in support of that version. It is pertinent to mention that Doctor Vijay Mohan Atreja PW-1 who had examined complainant Saroj Bala on 13.4.1984 had found the following three injuries on her person:

Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the face (cheek) wound starting 2 cm from the middle of the upper lip, extending up to the left side of the angle of the mouth, covering part of the lower lip at the angle of the mouth. Bleeding was present. Skin was missing in the whole. The proximity of the wound just described, edges of the would were ragged.

There was contusion of 4 cm x 3.5 cm on the left arm posteriolaterally 7 cm from the left cabital fossa. Red in colour. There were small bite marks present on the two borders or the wound. They were superficial.

There was a contusion of 7 cm x 2 cm on the upper part of the back lying obliquely red in colour.

Injury No. 1 was opined to be grievous in nature and has been found to have caused permanent disfigurement of the face of complainant Saroj Bala.

Mr. Dinesh Nagra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to support its version. Learned Counsel has pointed out that PW-5 Babu Ram who is stated to have reached the spot on 13.4.1984 has not supported the case of the prosecution and the other person Chhitru who was cited as witness by the prosecution has not been examined. According to the learned Counsel, in the absence of independent corroboration of the version of the prosecution, no conviction could have recorded by the Courts below. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the statement of Babu Ram PW-5 and argued that it casts sufficient doubt on the prosecution version. He has pointed out that the injuries on the person of co-accused Sudesh Kumari were not deliberately explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned Counsel has urged that the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel has lastly submitted that benefit of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended to the Petitioner as he is first offender and the revision petition is almost ten years old.

Mr. Bijender Dhankar, learned State counsel has argued that both the Courts have found that occurrence has taken place and the complainant Saroj Bala who appeared as PW-2 had supported the prosecution version in material particulars. Learned Counsel has emphasised that the date of occurrence, and the manner of suffering injuries find ample corroboration from statements made by the complainant Saroj Bala, who appeared as PW-2 and that of her sister Raksha Rani who had appeared as PW-3. Their statements cannot be doubted once the medico-legal report and the statement made by PW-1 Doctor Vijay Mohan Atreja, Medical Officer, ESI Hospital, Jagadhri are kept in view. He has urged for upholding the views of the Courts below.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that this petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. The prosecution version as disclosed by Saroj Bala is fully corroborated by her sister. Both the witnesses have been subjected to detailed cross-examination by defence but nothing worthwhile has been extracted to impeach their credibility. It is true that there is relationship between the complainant and Raksha Rani her sister. It is also true that they were interested witnesses in the prosecution case and no independnet corroboration as such has come. But it is equally true that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out merely because there is absence of independent corroboration to the version of the prosecution as disclosed by complainant Saroj Bala. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an eye witness provided it is found to be wholly reliable. Where the testimony of such a witness is not wholly reliable the rule of prudence is that corroboration of the testimony or such a witness be sought from independent sources for the purposes of recording the conviction. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ballabh Das and Others, RCR(Crl.) 287 (SC) and Pralhad Vs. State of Maharashtra,

In both the judgments, the Supreme Court has taken the view that where the witnesses are inimical or interested then careful scrutiny of their testimony is required. It has been categorically observed that the rule of scrutiny is one of caution and not a rule of law. But, in the present case there is ample medical evidence on record proving the permanent disfiguration of the face of the complainant Saroj Bala. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the face (cheek) shows mark starting 2 cm from the middle of the upper lip, extending up to the left side of the angle of the mouth, covering part of the lower lip at the angle of the mouth. Bleeding was present. Skin was missing in the whole. The edges of the wound were ragged.

There is corroboration of the statement made by Saroj Bala PW-2 with regard to pressing her breast by the accused-Petitioner. The basic ingredients of the offences described in Sections 354, 325 and 323 IPC stand satisfied. The doctor in his statement before the Court appearing as PW-1 has categorically stated that the injuries on the face of the complainant Saroj Bala PW-2 cannot be self-inflicted and he has stood the test of cross- examination by stating that in his opinion injury No. 1 was grievous in nature. Therefore, there is no room left warranting interference in this case.

I am also not persuaded to accept the prayer of the Petitioner for releasing him under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act because he has caused permanent disfigurement of the face of complainant Saroj Bala and also has outraged her modesty. There is no merit in the prayer made by the Petitioner for releasing him on probation.

As a sequence of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. The bail bond of the Petitioner shall stand forfeited. He shall surrender to the authorities for serving remaining sentence.

Petition dismissed.