Revisional jurisdiction allows setting aside perverse concurrent convictions where prosecution story is physically implausible, lacks corroboration, relies on inadmissible evidence, despite general bar on reappreciating facts.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 18.4.2012 and order of sentence dated 27.4.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) was bringing fuel wood on 17.4.2010. The accused Ramesh Chand stopped her, caught hold of her arms and touched her inappropriately at about 7.00 AM. He tore her shirt. She fell and shouted for help. The accused gave her beatings and abused her. He threatened to kill her and her children in case the incident was reported to anyone. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law reached the spot and rescued her from the accused. The matter was reported to the police, and FIR (Ex.PW1/A) was registered. ASI Karan Singh (PW7) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/A). The victim produced a shirt, which was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed. Seal impression (Ex.P1) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The parcel containing the shirt (Ex.P1) was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). Dr H.R. Kalia (PW5) medically examined the victim and found that she had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by kicks and fist blows. He issued MLC (Ex.PW5/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. The informant (PW1) narrated the incident. (PW2) and (PW3) are the eyewitnesses. Madan Lal (PW4) witnessed the recovery of the shirt. Dr H.R. Kalia (PW5) medically examined the victim. Mansa Ram (PW6) produced the copy of the compromise. ASI Karam Singh (PW7) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that a false case was made against him because of the land dispute. The witnesses deposed falsely. He claimed that he was innocent. The statements of Ajudhya Devi (DW1), Kartar Singh (DW2) and Satish Kumar (DW3) were recorded in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimony of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to a grea