S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) RAM Kishan petitioner was brought to trial under Sections 354, 384, 506 and 294 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rajpura. The learned trial Magistrate found the case against the petitioner proved to the hilt and held him guilty of the said offences and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the first count; to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the second count; to six months rigorous imprisonment under the third count and to two months rigorous imprisonment under the fourth count with the direction that the substantive sentences so awarded to him shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 384 and 506, Indian Penal Code but while upholding his convictions order Sections 354 and 294, Indian Penal Code, set aside his sentence and released him or probation for a period of 2 years to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He was, however, ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings. He has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision. Smt. Chander Kala complainant has filed Crl. Revision No. 839 of 1981 for awarding adequate sentence to the accused. This judgment will govern both the revisions.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these revisions are very few and sample. The complainant Smt. Chander Kala was workings a teacheresss in the govt. Middle School, Pabri since 8.1.1977. Ram Krishan petitioner was the Head Master of the said school. It is said that he used to make absence remarks against Smt. Chander Kala while saying that he had even forgotten his beloved on seeing her (the complainant). He also used to pass remarks to the complainant in the presence of other teachers to the effect that "they would go to the jail together and reside in the same cell." It is alleged that the petitioner would pick-up the minor mistakes in her work and used to give vent to amorous tendencies towards her. On 10.3.1978 she received a message in the school through Nand Kishore, a senior teacher in the Primary School that she had been summoned by the petitioner to his house to get the list of the students of 5th Class signed as he was lying ill. Consequently, she went to his house at about 11 a.m. and requested him to sign the statement but instead of singing the statement, he put the same aside and placed 3 blank papers before her. He asked her to put her signatures on those blank papers. When she refused to do so, he threatened her to spoil her chastity and to kill her. She is stated to have put her signatures on those papers out of fear and pressure. The petitioner also told her that he could convert those papers into any writing made on her behalf and that she should submit herself to him and to his line. Declining to do so, she came out, went to her house and narrated the incident to her husband. She also apprised of this incident to the other staff members of the school including Nirmala Mehta, Gian Chand and Gobind Ram on the following morning. The petitioner then called her in his office on 18.3.1978 and caught hold of her by her arm with a view to outrage her modesty. He also held out threats to use the blank paper signed by her to her detriment. She freed herself by pushing him aside, went to her house and narrated the incident to her husband. On the basis of the complaint, Exhibit PA, lodged by Smt. Chander Kala 1, First Information Report, Exhibit PG, was registered. Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh, who investigated the case, arrested the petitioner. On interrogation, he made dislosure statement Exhibit PB, leading to the recovery of 3 papers signed by Smt. Chander Kala from the specified place of concealment and the same were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PC. After necessary investigation, the accused-petitioner was challaned and sent up for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. The petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case due to enmity with the witnesses. He examined 8 witnesses besides tendering into evidence certain documents in defence.
(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the material on the record acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Sections 384 and 506 Indian Penal Code and recorded the following findings :- (i) That in my opinion, the charges (under Sections 384 and 506) are not proved against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable suspicion. The occurrence regarding these charges took place on 10.3.1978 but Chander Kala did not lodge any report regarding this occurrence till 18.3.1978. This inordinate delay in lodging the report regarding this occurrence has not been explained. Chander Kala stated as PW1 then she apprised her husband Nihal Chand about the occurrence on the same day on return to the house but Nihal Chand has not come forward to corroborate on the point. The evidence of Nihal Chand would have been material in this regard under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. (ii) that the possibility of this occurrence, therefore, having been fabricated cannot be excluded. The complainant in her zeal or under some wrong evidence, appears to have made a clever attempt to bring grave charges against the accused while making the written statement, Exhibit P.A., before the police. (iii) that in the instant case, the delay factor appears to have played its part and complainant has introduced this occurrence perhaps to magnify the offence against the accused. (iv) that the evidence led by the prosecution regarding the occurrence has to be appreciated in the light of the above background. Exhibits P.1. P.2 and P.3 are alleged blank papers got signed by the accused from Chander Kala by putting her under pressure and threats. Such like documents can be prepared at any time. In Exhibit PA, Chander Kala had stated that her signatures were obtained on three blank papers meant for affidavits but Exhibits P.1 is not a blank paper rather it is a typed affidavit of Chander Kala. It also bears the signatures of one teacher, namely, K.K. Bansal. (v) that thus I reach the conclusion that the recovery of Exhibits P.1 to P.7 and P.D. at the instance of the accused, is highly doubtful. This particularly so, for the reason that documents, Exhibits P.1, P.2 and P.3, could be fabricated at any time and the photographs could be available even with the complainant and/or with several other teachers in the school; (vi) that the complainant's version that she was summoned by the accused to his house on 10.3.1978 for getting certain statement signed, also sounds improbable in view of previous relations between the complainant and the accused. Even otherwise some other family members of the accused like his mother or brother must also be present in the house. The occurrence was of such a nature that the complainant would not kept quiet for 8 day without lodging any report because the accused had threatened to convert the blank papers signed by her into valuable security or documents of any other nature harmful to her; (vii) that her keeping quiet for more than a week goes to show that perhaps no such occurrence took place and she sought to involve the accused in this offence when the subsequent occurrence which took place on 18.3.1978 and then she reported the matter regarding that incident to the police. ;