Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -Roshal Lal has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated 7.8.2006 and order dated 8.8.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide which he was convicted under Sections 342 and 377 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - for an offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - for an offence under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code as well as the judgment dated 3.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, who while affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court, dismissed the appeal.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that complainant -Bhim Singh moved a complaint against the accused -Roshan that on 13.8.2001 at about 10 -11.00 a.m. his son Monu was playing with children near his house. Upon hearing the voice of weeping of his son, he went towards the house of accused, upon seeing him, accused had fled away in the process of tightening the string of his Pajama after leaving his (complainant's) son in his house. On query, his son disclosed the tail of woes to him, that accused by calling him (Monu) has committed carnal intercourse upon him (Monu). On the basis of this complaint, a case was registered against the accused. Accused was arrested. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The victim as well as the accused were medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court. The accused -Petitioner was charge sheeted for offence under Sections 342 and 377 of Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses and thereafter closed the evidence. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein he denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. However, he did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties held the Petitioner guilty for commission of offence under Sections 342 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as noticed above. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana and have also gone through the record.;