Karan [Petitioner] Vs. State of UT, Chandigarh [Respondent]
CRR-1455-2018
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
Facts: The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated 16.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby appeal against judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh in FIR bearing no. 347 dated 03.09.2015 registered under Sections 294, 509, 34 of the IPC at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, was dismissed.
Issue: Whether the appeal against conviction of the petitioners has been rightly dismissed?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:
Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the judgment of conviction on the ground that the investigating officer is also the complainant in the present case as the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the investigating officer and not the victim. Because the investigating officer is himself the complainant and not the victim on whose account the FIR was registered, the principle of fair investigation was violated and clearly bias cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submits that on scrutinizing the cross examination of Anjali (PW-1) it is apparent that no specific role is attributed to the petitioner and it was in fact the co-accused who passed the obscene comments. Since no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner, he has been wrongly convicted. Moreover, Anjali’s statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reveals that only one person got out of the car and tried to stop her, yet, the police set up a case against two people and crucially did not conduct any identification parade. Lastly, it was argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which make the entire prosecution case flimsy.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been further upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and therefore no intervention is warranted.
Held: The court held that, “in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court or the learned trial Court which warrants interference by this Court. As such, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.”
