The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so entitles the accused to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal upholding the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal whereby respondent No.2 (herein) was acquitted of the charge under Section 354 of the IPC.

2. For the cause of clarity nay simplicity, the revisionist-petitioner, who has registered the FIR in question, will be referred to as the ‘complainant’ while respondent No.2, the accused in the FIR in question, will be referred to as the ‘accused’ throughout this judgement.

3. In the present revision petition, the pertinent facts for adjudication are that an FIR bearing No. 0121 dated 20.12.2016 was lodged against the accused-respondent No.2 resident of Village Jakholi, Police Station Titram, Tehsil and District Kaithal, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity the ‘IPC’) at Police Station Titram, District Kaithal. The matter proceeded to trial before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal which concluded its proceedings and, vide, judgement dated 29.07.2022, acquitted the accused (respondent No.2 herein) of the charge ibid framed against him. Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal against the said judgement. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide judgement dated 16.07.2024, upheld the trial court’s decision affirming the acquittal of the accused. The appellate Court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent No.2 beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgement passed by the learned trial Court who had reached an appropriate conclusion based on the material facts presented during the trial and hence does not require any interference.

4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the consistent findings of the both the trial Court and the appellate Court has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking re-examination of the findings as the same are based on alleged mis-appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. However, it is well-settled law that that the scope of revision is limited and does not entail any re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.

5. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, on 12.12.2016, a Zero FIR was registered under Sections 323, 354, and 506 of the IPC at the Women Police Station Kurukshetra and was forwarded to Kaithal Police. The complainant, a 25-year–old women from Bhusa Khera in Fatehabad, alleged that since she moved to her maternal uncle’s house (respondent No.2 herein) in Jakholi, Kaithal, in the year 2007, at the age of 15, her uncle, Ved Parkash (respondent No.2 herein) had harassed her with character accusations and obscene behavior. Her uncle also instigated her family, including her parents and siblings, who also subjected her to physical and mental abuse, leading her to consider suicide multiple times. It has been alleged in the FIR by the complainant that she stated working at Krishna Ayurvedic Hospital on 05.03.2016; she claimed that her family and uncle Ved Prakash (respondent No.2 herein), continued threatening her life and recordings of these threats were in her possession. On 03.10.2016, she was attacked by the father and uncle Ved Prakash (respondent No.2 herein) near Kurukshetra University, where they publicly threatened to kill her. She sought police help but allegedly no action was taken. Since then, she has been in hiding. Following her complaint, FIR No.0121 was registered on 20.12.2016. Investigation by ASI Veena and ASI Ajmer Singh Found other family members innocent, while Ved Parkash (respondent No.2 herein) surrendered on 10.01.2017. Sections 323 and 506 were later on removed, and a final charge sheet was filed against Ved Parkash (respondent No.2 herein)