BALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Balwan Singh has filed the present appeal against State of Haryana and other respondents challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by learned Judge, Special Court for Heinous Crimes against Women, Kurukshetra, vide which the accused-respondents No.2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) It is mainly stated in the grounds of appeal that Balwan Singh made a complaint to the police on 04.06.2012 alleging therein that his daughter was teased by Jitender but the matter was settled in the panchayat. Again on 01.06.2012 and 03.06.2012, she was assaulted and molested by Jitender, Virender and Narender, who caught her by the arm with bad intention and pressed her breast and on the same day, Jitender, Virender, Narender, Ishwar and Jaipal came with common intention and caused injuries with lathis to complainant's brother Subhash. A case was registered under Sections 323, 341, 354, 506, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar on the statement of Balwan Singh and challan was presented against accused Virender and Narender in the Court of Area Magistrate and against accused Jitender before the Juvenile Justice Board. Ishwar and Jaipal were, however, found innocent. Both the accused namely Virender and Narender were acquitted by the trial Court. It is further stated in the grounds of appeal that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the statements of the witnesses. Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 3 appeared and contested the present appeal.

(3.) From the perusal of the record, I find that learned Judge, Special Court for Heinous Crimes against Women, Kurukshetra, vide judgment dated 05.03.2014 acquitted the accused Narender and Virender for the charges framed against them. Learned trial Court, after discussing the evidence in minute detail as well as law on the point, held that the charge against the accused person is that they wrongfully restrained the victim and molested her on 01.06.2012, 03.06.2012 and in March 2012, caused injuries to Subhash and also threatened to kill him. The Court also held that as regarding the incident of March, 2012, no day and date of the incident has been mentioned and this incident has not been reported in a reasonable period after the occurrence. The Court also discussed the fact that it was the victim, who had allegedly told the complainant Balwan Singh and her uncle PW-5 Subhash about the occurrence. The testimony of Balwan Singh and Subhash is hearsay, which is not permissible in evidence. It is further held that the occurrence, which was held in March, 2012 was only against Jitender, who is facing enquiry before Juvenile Justice Board. As regarding the incident on 01.06.2012, it is held by the trial Court that occurrence was not seen by anybody, which took place at 6.30 a.m. in the morning. The Court pointed out discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and held that a reasonable doubt has been created about their truthfulness. The victim stated that her clothes were not torn whereas complainant Balwan stated that clothes of victim were torn. No such torn clothes were produced before the police. The Court also held that no site plan was prepared where the occurrence had taken place on 01.06.2012 etc.