IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.349 of 2003. Date of Decision:10.8.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Subhash Chand. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate,Ist Class, Dharamshala acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 354, 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story is that the complainant Kushla Devi (PW1) alleged that she had gone out of her house with nephew Akshay Kumar for easing herself when the respondent blocked her path and assaulted her including pressing her breasts and making an attempt to further outrage her modesty. She cried for help whereupon PW7 Smt. Neelam Kumari and PW3 Swarna Devi came to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the respondent. The incident occurred on 12.5.2002 at around 10 p.m. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Learned trial Court on the consideration of the evidence on record finds a number of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not only with respect to the spot of occurrence but also as to the presence of each of the witnesses on the spot where each purported eye witness contradicts the other. For the purposes of the present appeal, I am not entering into this aspect. What is significant to notice is that the incident is of 12.5.2002 and the First Information Report has been lodged on 17.5.2002 i.e. after a period of more than five days. PW1 Kushala Devi states that she had reported the matter to the police on the morning of 13.5.2002 but there is nothing on the record to show that either a rapat or FIR has been registered with the police. She then states that she had submitted a complaint in writing to the police which has also not seen the light of the day. PW3 Smt. Swarna Devi sister-in-law of the complainant states that the complainant has inimical relations with the respondent as they are political rivals. It is in this background that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. assumes significance. What happened for five days before the F.I.R. was lodged is not established from the evidence, although, there is an insistence by PW1 Kushala Devi that she had immediately reported the matter to the police next day, there is no evidence on record. In this background, I find that the delay in lodging the First Information Report was itself fatal to the entire prosecution case more especially when the 3 relations between the parties are inimical. There is thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 10, 2010(R)