Krishna Murari JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by Parminder Kaur, impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana through which her challenge to a judgment dated 27.02.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala was turned down, thereby confirming her conviction of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 Under Sections 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
Facts & Case History
2. The prosecution story, as recorded in the FIR at around noon on 24.02.1996, was that the Appellant was a single lady living with her child, mother and a young boy as her tenant in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix's1 house. About a week prior to registration of the police complaint, the Appellant called the prosecutrix to her house and tried to entice her to indulge in illicit intercourse with the rich tenant boy in return for clothes and trips from him. The Appellant at about 6.00 A.M. on 19.02.1996, allegedly pushed the visiting prosecutrix into the room occupied by the tenant boy and bolted it from the outside. It was only on hearing the prosecutrix's screams that after five minutes the door was unlocked, with her father (Hari Singh, PW-2), Bhan Singh and Karnail Singh standing outside. Swiftly, the boy ran out of the room and successfully escaped. Upon the prosecutrix emerging from the room, her father protested and expressed his dismay to the by-standing Appellant. Scared for their reputation, the prosecutrix and her father returned to their home without reporting the matter to anyone, except the prosecutrix's mother. However, on 24.02.1996 at 7.00 A.M., the Appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix outside her house and threatened to kill her brother if anyone was informed of the matter. The prosecutrix was able to escape the Appellant's clutches and worried at this high-handedness, proceeded with her father towards the police station to report these two incidents and lodged a complaint.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-1), her father (PW-2), the draftsman who prepared the site plan (PW-3), the headmistress who proved the prosecutrix's age (PW-4) and the investigating officer (PW-5). The Appellant, in turn, both denied all allegations and examined one witness of her own-a neighbour, Gurnail Singh (DW-1) and offered an alternate version in her statement Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), claiming that there was no tenant at all in her home and that the complaint was nothing but motivated revenge at the instance of one Bhola Singh against whom she had levelled allegations of rape a few months ago.
4. This alternate version was summarily rejected by the trial Court which concluded that the Appellant's claim of the complaint being at the instance of Bhola Singh was unlikely both because malicious prosecution of sexual abuses involving minors, at the instance of third parties, was improbable; and even DW-1 in his cross-examination had admitted that Hari Singh was a permanent employee of the Irrigation