The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible evidence, including witness testimonies and medical evidence, in proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide which he had dismissed an appeal against judgment of conviction dated 4.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 7.11.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, vide which he had convicted accused Dharambir for the offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen for the offence under Section 354 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The accused-convict - Dharambir, who is the petitioner before this Court prays that the revision be accepted, the impugned judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal and judgment in appeal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal be set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution story are that the complainant Pushpa Devi wife of Sh.Ram Parshad, resident of Nai Basti, Samshabad, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad had brought a criminal complaint under Sections 148, 323, 452, 354, 506, 341 & 504 read with Section 149 IPC against the accused Dharambir, Bhawani Shankar, Mahesh Chand, Mukesh, Smt.Mamta and Om Dutt on the allegations that her husband Ram Parshad has been working as a Teacher at Hindu Senior Secondary School, Ballabgarh; that on 11.8.2004 at about 8:00/8:30 p.m. when she was all alone at home, then accused Dharambir entered her room with wrong intention; that Bhawani Shankar also followed him; that both of them started doing obscene acts with her; that they hugged her; that Dharambir caught hold of her breast, whereas Bhawani Shankar put her on the bed after pulling her hairs; that in the meanwhile, her husband Ram Parshad arrived at the spot. According to the complainant, she had raised noise, as such, accused ran away from the spot. However, after some time accused Dharambir and Bhawani Shankar accompanied by their co-accused, namely, Mahesh Chand, Mukesh, Mamta and Om Dutt again reached their home and they started assaulting her husband; that at that time Dharambir and Bhawani Shankar were armed with iron rods, Mukesh with a knife, Mamta and Om Dutt with sticks; that Bhawani Shankar had given an iron rod blow to Ram Parshad hitting him on head, Dharambir gave an iron rod blow hitting Ram Parshad on his hands, Om Dutt and Mukesh gave stick blows to Ram Parshad; that when the complainant intervened, then Dharambir gave an iron rod blow to her hitting her on head, Bhawani Shankar gave an iron rod blow hitting her on legs, whereas Mukesh and Mamta took her in a grass; that the complainant and her husband were given severe beatings; that Mukesh had put a knife on the neck of Ram Parshad threatening to kill him. According to the complainant, she and her husband raised noise, hearing which, another person by the name of Ram Parshad and Parmod came there and rescued them from the clutches of accused; that the accused left the spot giving threat to kill the complainant and her husband; that subsequently the complainant and her husband went to Police Post Camp, Palwal but no action was taken. Therefore, the complainant had filed a private complaint in the Court of law.

4. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated 15.4.2010. Subsequently, the complainant made a statement in the Court on 11.6.2011 that she did not want to prosecute Bhawani Shankar, as s