Delhi High Court
Kusum Bala vs State & Ors. on 23 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23rd January, 2017
+ CRL.REV.P. 79/2017
KUSUM BALA
..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Arun Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS.
..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP
with SI Anukul, PS Subji
Mandi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 1239/2017
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Crl.M.A. 1240/2017
For the reasons stated in the application 20 days delay in filing the
petition is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 79/2017
1. The complainant got lodged FIR No.314/2008 under Sections
354/452/506/34 IPC pursuant to directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
After investigation a charge-sheet was filed and charge for offences
punishable under Sections 452/354/34 IPC was framed against the
respondents. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the learned
Trial Court acquitted the respondents. The learned Trial Court noted that
neither any MLC was prepared nor any medical record of the complainant
was available to substantiate that she was assaulted or criminal force was
used. Even in examination-in-chief the complainant did not say that she
received minor injuries which was deposed by PW-2 her sister-in-law. A
civil dispute was filed by the complainant Ex.PW-1/DA wherein each and
every instance was mentioned except the incident on the basis of which FIR
was got registered. Besides the fact that neither the alleged torn clothes were
recovered which were case property nor any other incriminating object was
recovered, the learned Trial Court noted that the falsity of the alleged
occurrence is further proved during the cross-examination of the complainant
wherein she admitted that other family members were present at the house
when the alleged incident took place but strangely none was joined in the
investigation and in the entire record there is no mention of any other person
being available except the sister-in-law. Thus granting benefit of doubt to
the accused they were acquitted.
2. An appeal against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate dated 1st June, 2015 was also dismissed vide the impugned
judgment dated 29th September, 2016. Hence the present revision petition.
As noted above, the two Courts below have applied themselves on facts and
law and a concurrent finding of two Courts is against the complainant. In a
revision petition this Court would interfere only if there is a gross illegality
in the impugned judgments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to press his claim submits that
though the learned Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution
with respect to the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, however there
is no finding returned with regard to Section 452 IPC.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the
record. The learned Trial Court in Para 10 specifically referred to the
necessary ingredients for an offence of criminal trespass punishable under
Section 452 IPC. Adverting to the evidence and appreciating thereto, the
learned Trial Court found that the evidence of the complainant could not be
relied upon as she had been contradicted on material aspects during cross-
examination. One of the necessary ingredients of criminal trespass to be
punishable under Section 452 is to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult
or annoy any person in possession of the property. Since no offence has
been allegedly proved or any annoyance or insult to the complainant or any
other family member, the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly
acquitted the respondents of the charges framed. This Court finds no reason
to interfere in the same.
5. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2017
'ga'
