Smt. Urmila Devi vs Smt. Sarita Devi and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents and also one Shri Joginder Pal for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that they imputed allegations, before the police in the Panchayat regarding her illicit relations with Raj Kumar and Sev Kumar, resulting in lowering her prestige in the estimation of the general public.

After considering the evidence on record, at the end of the trial, Joginder Pal accused was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, whereas, respondents herein were acquitted on the ground that there is uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. Further, PW2 Roshan Lal did not impute any allegations on the respondents and PW3 Kaushlaya had also given a vague statement regarding their involvement.

Heard and gone through the record.

The perusal of the testimony of the complainant shows that she pointed accusing finger towards Joginder Pal alone. In cross-examination she made a general allegation that other accused also called her lady of easy virtue in the presence of PW2 Roshan Lal, but Roshan Lal in his statement no-where corroborated her testimony. He didn�t, even state about the presence of the respondents on the spot. PW3 Kaushlaya though stated about the presence of the respondents when the complainant was called by the police, pursuant to a complaint alleged to have been sent by Joginder Pal but she gave a vague statement with respect to the respondents that they had also imputed the allegations of bad character. Qua the respondents herein, I do not find a cogent and reliable evidence, particularly in view of the statement of PW2 Roshan Lal. Thus, the statement of complainant Urmila remains uncorroborated with respect to the role played by the other respondents.

Therefore, in my considered opinion, the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the findings to this effect are borne out from the record, which cannot be interfered with. Hence, the appeal is without any merit, therefore, dismissed.

Respondents are hereby discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the pendency of the proceedings in this case.