The importance of establishing the place of occurrence and the need for proper evidence to prove the veracity of the occurrence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1st, Dhanbad in Cr. appeal No. 91 of 2007; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 611 of 2002 (T.R. No. 982 of 2007); whereby the petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC and sentence of R.I for six months under section 506 IPC and further S.I. for 2 months in default of the payment of fine, and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, has been affirmed and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint case against her husband alleging therein that on being deserted by the accused, the complainant was living separately at her parent’s house along with her minor daughter and thereafter she filed another case against the accused-husband and while she was coming to depose in that case on 29.04.2002 at about 6.45 A.M. along with her brother she found the accused along with his associates was standing near Godhar Railway siding and the accused on seeing the complainant stopped them and began abusing them and caught hold of her hair and torn her blouse with intetion to outrage her modesty and also threatened her that if she would depose against him then he will teach her a lesson. However, on raising hulla, the accused fled away on seeing the people.

4. Mrs. J.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and her brother. She further submits that the complainant and her brother have stated three different places of occurrence and the brother of the complainant, the only eye witness along with the victim stated that there is no such type of place as alleged to be the place of occurrence. She further submits that there is gross miscarriage of justice in passing the impugned judgments and there is absence of cogent, convincing and trustworthy evidence against the petitioner.

She further submits that the place of occurrence as alleged in the complaint petition differs from the version of the complainant as well as the statement made by the complainant witness No. 2-the brother of the complainant and as such the complainant has failed to prove and establish the place of occurrence and in this view of the fact, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted from the charges as non-establishment of the place of occurrence casts doubt over the case of the complainant.

She lastly submits that there is substantial delay in filing the complaint case and the complainant has failed to give any plausible explanation for the same.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is no error in the findings given by the learned trial court, as such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the LCR; it appears that there is material contradiction in deposition of main prosecution witnesses so far as the place of occurrence is concerned. It transpires from the deposition of the complainant (C.W.1) that the occurrence took place at Godhar Railway Station; however, C.W.2 deposed that the occurrence took place near Godhar Railway siding and the fact remains that there is no place as Godhar Railway station.

In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 601 has categorically held that when place of occurrence itself has not been established it would not be proper to accept the prosecution version. For brevity the paragraph 11 is quoted herein-below:

“11........Though the FIR is not a substantiv