Dismissed

Jagdev Singh v. U.O.I.Etc

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2011CRWP/710/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging a conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment by a Summary Security Force Court under Section 46 of the BSF Act. The Court held that it could not re-appreciate evidence as disputed questions of fact existed and no jurisdictional flaw was shown.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jagdev Singh Vs U.O.I.Etc — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Writ Petition No. 710 of 1998

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 710 of 1998

¶5

Date of decision: 14.10.2011

Jagdev Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶12

Present: Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for UOI.

¶14

RANJIT SINGH J.

¶15

The petitioner, who was serving as Constable with 15th Batalion BSF Sirsa Road, Hisar was tried by Summary Security Force Court for an offence under Section 354 IPC. After finding the petitioner guilty, he was sentenced to be dismissed from service besides award of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner has now challenged his conviction and the sentence through the present writ petition.

¶16

The perusal of the charge sheet would show that the petitioner is accused of having caught hold of Kumari Som Lata, sister-in-law of LNK Ashok Lavaniya with intent to outrage her modesty in Government quarter in B.S.F. Campus at Hisar. The petitioner was, accordingly, accused of committing the civil offence under Section 46 of BSF Act for use of criminal force to a women with an intent to outrage her modesty, punishable under Section 354 IPC.

¶17

Criminal Writ Petition No. 710 of 1998 2

¶18

The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.1996. The trial of the petitioner by Summary Security Force Court was endorsed by the Deputy Inspector General of BSF. The petitioner pleaded not guilty whereupon the Court recorded the evidence of all the witnesses, who were relevant to the charge.

¶19

LNK Ashok Lavaniya, his wife Pushpa Devi and the victim Som Lata appeared as witnesses during the trial. The petitioner had also examined his wife Manpreet Kaur as DW1. He has also placed on record some medical certificate showing that complainant victim Som Lata was referred to hospital at Hisar where she was examined on 24.08.1996.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence of prosecution is absolutely unreliable and unsatisfactory where the witnesses have contradicted each other. Plea also is that the prosecution version is not supported by any medical evidence. During the course of arguments, counsel also makes a grievance that the petitioner was sent to civil jail without supply of the order, which would be in violation of his fundamental rights.

¶21

The respondents have filed reply pleading that the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact and, thus, it would not be within the jurisdiction of this Court to re-determine the facts while exercising writ jurisdiction. Otherwise, the reference is made to all the proceedings which were held and the procedure that was followed leading to conviction of the petitioner.

¶22

Counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner has not placed on record entire proceedings. Apart from copy of charge sheet only one page of the proceedings is annexed with the

¶23

Criminal Writ Petition No. 710 of 1998

¶24

¶25

writ petition i.e. Annexure P-2 showing the order of conviction and award of sentence. During the course of arguments, Mr. Rathee has placed before me the proceedings of the Summary Security Force Court.

¶26

I have minutely examined the evidence led during the trial. There is clear and clinching evidence against the petitioner that he had entered into quarter of LNK Ashok Lavaniya and had used criminal force against his sister-in-law, who had at the relevant time had come to stay with him. His wife, who had immediately reached the scene after the incident has also appeared as a witness and has deposed that she saw the petitioner coming down from the stairs of the block where their quarter was located. She had hurriedly gone to her quarter and noticed her sister lying under a great shock. At that time, kurta was totally torn. Her hairs were dishevelled and she was under the great shock. Her string of salwar was broken. Her scarf (dupata) was also found torn. Thereafter, the victim, who was 19 years old at that time has given clear version identifying the petitioner as an accused, who had entered and made this serious assault on her body to outrage her modesty.

¶27

The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that his defence has not been analyzed or assessed would be of no avail to him. The petitioner did not address even the single question while cross examining the wife of LNK Ashok Lavaniya. He had done a negligible cross examination of victim lady. Only question addressed to her was if she had cried or not which she successfully explained. No question otherwise was addressed to the victim lady. Even no suggestion was given to her that the petitioner was not a

¶28

Criminal Writ Petition No. 710 of 1998

¶29

¶30

person, who had entered the house and had committed this assault violating her body a helpless victim.

¶31

The evidence given by the wife of the petitioner would be an evidence of highly interested evidence, who had obvious interest to save her husband. In any case, she is not a witness to the incident in any manner and her evidence would only show that the petitioner was raising a defence of alibi. Such evidence has always been considered weak defence. In any event, this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, would not be in a competent position to re-appreciate the evidence as is being pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel, otherwise, have not raised any submission effecting the jurisdiction of the Summary Security Force Court or any violation of the procedural requirement, which may have called for any interference in the order passed by the Summary Security Force Court. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶32

October 14, 2011 rts

¶33

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Jagdev Singh v. U.O.I.Etc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev Singh v. U.O.I.Etc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimla Gupta & Ors. Vs Ashim & Ors.

Dara Singh Vs Pb.State

Shilpa Aggarwal @ Sweta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahavir etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.

A.C. Karthikeyan Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ajay Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.