SATPAL ALIAS SATTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Kamlesh (prosecutrix) was studying in 5th class on 10.1.1993. Her parents had gone to meet her Bua named Guddi who was suffering from fever. She was alone in the house at night. Her younger sister aged 2 years was also there. At about 10 P.M., Satpal accused resident of Munak who was running a shop at Bus Stand Munak in electric goods and whom she had known earlier came in their house, after unbolting the door. He was under the influence of liquor. He asked her as to where her parents had gone. She replied that they had gone to see her Bua. He sat near her cot and placed his hand on her shoulder and started rolling his hand on her shoulder. She asked Satpal not to touch her. He did not agree. He gave a tooth bite on her left cheek. She raised hue and cry which attracted Suraj Bhan who reached the spot. Accused ran away. In the meantime, her parents also came. She narrated the entire version to them. First of all her parents took the matter to the Biradari. Biradari could not provide them redress. Eventually, case FIR No. 11 was registered on 11.1.1993 under sections 354/451/323 IPC at Police Station Guraunda. After investigation, the accused was challaned under sections 354/451/323 IPC. Accused was charged under section 354/451/323 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

(2.) ON the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal found the charge proved against the accused. He convicted him thereunder vide order dated 10.6.1997. Vide order of the even date, he sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under section 451 IPC. He sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under section 323 IPC. He sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1-1/2 years under section 354 IPC. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently. He ordered that amount of fine if recovered shall be paid to Kamlesh as compensation.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no corroboration to the statement of Kamlesh (prosecutrix) and it would not be safe to maintain the conviction and sentence passed upon the accused by the learned courts below on her uncorroborated testimony. Suffice it to say, her statement has been corroborated by her uncle Suraj Bhan. Suraj Bhan has stated that her hue and cry attracted him to the spot. He has stated that he saw the accused coming out and running. Doctor has also stated that he found contusion on her cheek and this contusion was the result of human bite.