IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 02.04.2026 Sukhdeep Rani ... Appellant VERSUS Charanjit Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The instant application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of leave to appeal for challenging the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby respondents were acquitted in complaint case No.59 dated 07.11.2015 under Section 354 & 452 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case at hand is that FIR was lodged on the statement made by the prosecutrix, that on 19.11.2014 at about 08:00 a.m., the respondents armed with weapons, allegedly trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix after demolishing a portion of the wall. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 caught hold of the prosecutrix, manhandled her, and extended threats, while Respondent No. 1 made inappropriate advances. Furthermore, the co-accused Harman Singh assaulted the prosecutrix, snatched her dupatta and tore her clothes, thereby outraging her modesty. The complainant was ultimately rescued by her relatives who arrived at the spot. Subsequently to the registration of the FIR, investigation in the case was carried out, and the trial commenced. After taking into consideration the entire material on record, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents under Sections 354, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, under the said provision, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the respondents unlawfully and forcibly trespassed into the house of the appellant-complainant and, thereafter outraged her modesty by tearing her clothes. It is further contended that, as per the Medico-Legal Report (MLR), two injuries were found on the person of the complainant. Yet, despite specific allegations and corroborative evidence on record, the trial Court has committed a grave error in reaching the conclusion that mere trespassing does not prima facie mean that the case under Sections 354, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC is made out. Thus, the acquittal of respondents under the said charge needs to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that allegations made against the respondents in the FIR as well as statements brought on the record were vague and general, and did not constitute an offence under Sections 354, 452 read with Section 149 of IPC, given that the basic ingredients of the said offences were absolutely lacking. It was thus that respondents were acquitted by the trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and evidence on record.

5. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsels and perused the judicial file.

6. Reverting to the case at hand, it was observed by the learned trial Court that despite the alleged occurrence having taken place on

28.01.2015, the complaint before the learned JMIC concerned was filed only on 07.11.2015. The explanation about the same advanced by the complainant, that she had got her statement recorded and even moved an application before the investigating agency, in the absence of any proof of the same, was untenable with respect to the allegations, it was observed that not only had the complainant failed to prove her possession over the alleged place of occurrence, but had also failed to get examined material witnesses who had purportedly rescued her from the clutches of the accused persons. The material improvements with respect to weapons of offence made in her examination as a complainant witness were also noted. It was thereupon, finding insufficient evidence on record against the private respondents, that the learned trial Court proceeded to acquit them of all ch