KAWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kawal Singh son of Har Narain was named as accused in case FIR No.439 dated 20.12.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh under Section 354 IPC. Balwan Singh son of Jai Lal PW-1 appeared before a Head Constable Raj Singh who was present at Bahadurgarh - Jhajjar road along with companion police officials in connection of patrol duty. Balwan Singh stated that he was married with Sharmila about four years ago. On 18.12.1996 at about 7 AM, his wife was present at the Gitwar of the village when accued arrived there and made attempt to outrage her modesty. On noise raised, Om Pati PW-2 and Attar Singh PW-3 were attracted at the spot. The aforesaid FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.

(2.) Victim Sharmila appeared as PW-7. Her testimony was corroborated by Om Pati PW-2 and Attar Singh PW-3. Balwan Singh, complainant who had lodged FIR had appeared and supported the prosecution. PW-4 Ram Kumar, PW-5 Constable Ram Chander were formal witnesses. PW-4 Ram Kumar is witness to the recovery memo vide which broken bangles of Sharmila were taken into possession. PW-5 Constable Ram Chander had submitted the special report. ASI Hari Singh deposed regarding registration of formal FIR Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter prosecution closed its evidence and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded false implication.

(3.) In defence, Ram Kumar, DW-1 has deposed that relations between the parties were strained due to business rivalry. The learned trial court rejected the argument that the case of prosecution should be thrown out as there was a delay of two days in lodging the report. The trial court formed an opinion that in cases of sexual assault, the delay was bound to occur as the parties could not muster courage to report the matter because of involvement of reputation of the families. The trial court also placed reliance on PW- 7 Sharmila and PW-2 Om Pati and further held that the testimony of PW-3 Attar Singh has lent support to these witnesses by proving circumstancial evidence. The Lower Appellate Court had affirmed the findings of the trial court.