1. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.7.2014 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Appeal No.6/2013 arising out of order dated 23.1.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda in Criminal Case No.250/2012, appeal was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Harda.
2. Learned trial Court after relying the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1) in corroboration of her sister Pooja (PW-2) and Poonam (PW-3) convicted and applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and imposed the sentence for six month R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-
3. The lower appellate Court also affirmed the findings of learned trial Court. Learned trial Court did not agree with the defence contention of the applicant, that the evidence produced by the prosecution was contradictory and no material contradiction has been found in the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The prosecutrix had no enmity with the applicant/accused.
4. The suggestion given by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to old enmity has not been accepted by any of above witness. No defence witness has been examined on behalf of the applicant/accused before the trial Court. This Court has not found any property dispute or old rivalry between the parties for which the applicant could have been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix or her family members. Thus, the conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused was based on proper evidence available on record. This Court has not found any illegality or perversity in the findings of learned Courts below. Even though, Pooja (PW-2) and Poonam (PW-3) are the interested witnesses but law does not prohibit reliance upon the evidence of closely relative witnesses. It is highly improbable that related witnesses would screen and spare real assailants and falsely enrope appellants.
5. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar [AIR 2017 SC 845], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that :
"It is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. Her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does."6. Thus, the evidence of prosecutrix was cogent and consistent that the accused caught hold of her neck and sat on her chest and strangled her with the intention to outrage her modesty. Hence, the applicant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by learned courts below. 7. Therefore, the findings of the learned Courts below are not perverse or erroneous. The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is found according to offence and not excessive. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no ground for interference in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Courts below is hereby affirmed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the trial Court for undergoing the remaining jail sentence immediately. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
