S.P.S. RATHORE Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I shall decide an application under Section 389/397 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence in a revision petition which stands admitted. The applicant was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. Against that he and the prosecution both filed appeals while the complainant filed revision petition. His appeal was dismissed and the appeal and the revision filed by the prosecution and the complainant were allowed. Consequently his sentence of imprisonment was enhanced to 1 V2 years.

(2.) Initiating arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as far as conviction is concerned the present would be a revision petition but as against the order of enhancement of sentence the present case would be in the nature of an appeal. In my opinion it would be more appropriate to decide this question at the time of decision of the main case.

(3.) The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner was accused of molesting the complainant (who is since no more) on 12.8.1990 at about 12 O' clock in the office of the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association (HLTA) of which the petitioner was the President. The version of the prosecution is that the accused had gone to the house of the complainant on the previous day and had told her father that his proposal to send the complainant to Canada should be shelved and that he would arrange for her special coaching so that she could blossom and realise her full potential as a tennis player and asking that she should meet him in his office. On the next day the complainant went with her friend to meet the petitioner. The petitioner told the friend of the complainant to go and call the coach. When she went to all the coach he did not come and as she returned to inform the petitioner of this fact she saw that the petitioner had put his arm around the complainant and was holding her hand. Immediately on seeing her the petitioner released the complainant and fell back in confusion and, when she told him that the coach was not coming he asked her to go again to call him. At that point the complainant, distressed at the proposition of being left alone with the petitioner ran out of the office. When her friend followed her and asked her what had happened she burst into tears and told her about the petitioner having put his arm around the waist and catching her hand. Since the petitioner was a high ranking police officer (Deputy Inspector General) the girls, being overawed decided not to tell their parents, fearing reprisal. The next day was a holiday in the tennis courts . On 14.8.1990 the girls went to the tennis court purposely at an earlier time so as to avoid the petitioner. However, when the petitioner reached there the girls went away. At that time the complainant again became overcome with what had transpired two days ago and started weeping inconsolably. That was the stage at which the complainant decided to confide in her father. Since she could not bring herself to tell him what had happened her father sent her to the mother of her friend (since her own mother had died prior thereto), thinking that it might be easier for the complainant to tell a lady. Thereafter, perturbed by this shocking incident where a high police official had molested a young 15 lA years old trainee even though he was (in a manner) in loco parentis, being the President of the Association, some people of the locality along with some other tennis players went to the office of the HLTA to meet and remonstrate with the petitioner, but despite being telephoned about their arrival by the Chowkidar the petitioner did not reach there. On 16.8.1990 a memorandum (Ex.P-2) was signed by the complainant and others which was addressed to the Chief Minister, the Home Minister and the Chief Secretary among others. The signatories went in a deputation but could not met the Chief Minister or the Home Minister. They, however, met the Chief Secretary who ordered an inquiry by the Director General of the Police. The DGP after inquiry gave a report where he held the petitioner guilty and recommended registration of a criminal case. The events subsequent thereto need not be mentioned at this stage. The version of the defence is that in fact the complainant had been suspended for indiscipline and that is why these false accusations were made against the petitioner.