In criminal revisions, the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence but must ensure lower courts' findings are not perverse or erroneous, particularly amidst witness credibility disputes.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.7.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (The 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 petition are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Courft for the commission of offences punishable under Section s 452 , 354, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) was alone in her home on 05.03.2007. Her husband had gone to attend a marriage. She was sleeping with her minor child, aged 4 years, in her room. She had not bolted the door. The light was switched on. She heard the door open at 11:30 p.m. and saw Khelo Ram inside the room. She asked the accused why he had entered her room. The accused asked her not to make any noise. The accused caught hold of her arm and started kissing her. He caught her breasts. She shouted for help. Her brother-in-law came to her room. The accused ran away after seeing the victim’s brother-in-law. The victim reported the matter to the police. An entry (Ext.PW-4/A) in the daily diary was recorded, which was converted into an F.I.R. (Ext.PW-6/A). An application (Ext.PW-7/A) was filed for conducting the medical examination of the victim. Dr. Kavita Thakur (PW-3) conducted the medical examination of the victim and found a bite mark over the cheek and pain and tenderness in the neck. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW3/A). SI Naroop Singh (PW-7) conducted the i.nvestigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-7/B). He arrested the accused and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Section 452, 354, 323 and 324 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 is the brother-in-law of the victim (PW-5), who came to the spot after hearing the victim’s noise. Surjeet Singh (PW-2) did not support the prosecution’s case. Dr. Kavita Thakur (PW-3) conducted the medical examination of the victim. HHC Subhash Chand (PW-4) proved the entry in the daily diary. ASI Santosh Kumar (PW-5) signed the F.I.R. SI Naroop Singh (PW-6) investigated the case

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that a false case was made against him due to enmity. He stated initially that he wanted to l.ead defence evidence, but made a statement subsequently that he did not want to lead any defence evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the victim’s testimony was duly corroborated by her brother-in-law and the medical evidence. The Medical Officer stated in her cross-examination that the injury suffered by the victim could have been self- inflicted, but this admission was unbelievable because no one can bite their cheek and mandible. The accused claimed that he was implicated because of enmity; however, nothing was suggested to the victim and her brother-in-law to show any enmity. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced as under: -