AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31.8.2011, passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2-III of 2008. The record was requisitioned. Perused and the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant was heard.
As per the allegations made in the complaint by the petitioner, the first respondent on 26.10.2004 cut and removed about six pieces of bamboo trees and the branches of Sheesam trees from her land. On the next day, i.e., 27.10.2004 her brother asked its reasons from him, but respondents No. 1 to 3 fisticuffed him. Even her younger sister was also beaten, who have tried to intervene. Attracted by their cries, the complainant reached the spot. The respondents are alleged to have hurled abuses to her. Her gold chain and ear-rings were stolen. She was dragged by the second respondent in the courtyard and outraged her modesty. CW3 Jasbir Singh and CW6 Jagdish Singh, who were passers-bye, came to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the respondents.
The complainant alleged that she had reported the matter vide Rapat Ext.CW6/A, but the police did nothing, as such filed the private complaint in the month of April, 2006. The accused persons were summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were tried after putting them accusation under the aforesaid Sections to which they denied and at the end of the trial they were acquitted.
The perusal of the evidence on record reveals that with respect to the same incident the respondents had lodged the FIR against the complainant party, which was duly investigated by the police and the challan was presented. Ultimately the complainant and others faced the trial.
As CW1, the complainant stated that the matter was reported by her to the police before filing the complaint, but Rapat Ext.CW6/A reveals that it was not lodged by her. It was in fact lodged by CW2 Pardeep Kumar. The complainant did not take any recourse to the higher authorities making complaint that her FIR was not lodged by the police. The present complaint appears to be a counter-blast to the criminal case filed by the respondents. She alleges fracture and injury of her left foot, which is not substantiated by the medical evidence. Even she stated that her medical was not properly done but did not make any complaint to anyone nor alleged in her complaint. The learned trial Court rightly observed that there is variance in the report and the version made by her. Pardeep Kumar aforesaid did not make any statement with respect to the snatching of the gold-chain and the ear-rings by the respondents and even observed silence qua the injuries suffered by the complainant. Pertinently, he states that the complaint was only filed after the receipt of the summons in the case filed by the respondents. CW3 Jasbir Singh did not make any statement with respect to the beatings given by the respondents to the complainant and also that the gold-chain and the ear-rings of the complainant had fallen on the ground. He also did not say about its snatching by the respondents. CW6 Jagdish Singh only says that in the scuffle gold-chain came-off the neck of the complainant. There is no allegation of outraging the modesty of the complainant in the initial Rapat Ext.CW6/A. The present complaint, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be a retaliatory laches and a counter blast to the criminal case filed by the respondents qua the incident which allegedly took place on 27.10.2004. There have been material contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments in the statements of the witnesses and the truth was suppressed by like an iceberg. Thus, the present application seeking leave to appeal is hereby dismissed so also the criminal appeal.