IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Revision No. 142 of 2001. Decided on: 9.7.2008. __________________________________________________ Partap Singh & others. … Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. (Oral) The criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1998. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this criminal revision are that the petitioners were prosecuted in criminal case No. 148- 1/96 (99-II/96) in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat under Sections 354, 323 and 506/34 IPC. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat vide judgment dated 25.8.1998 held the petitioners guilty and sentenced them as detailed below: i) under Section 354 IPC, R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/- each; ii) under Section 323 IPC, R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 iii) under Section 506 IPC, R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine the petitioners were to undergo imprisonment for two months, one month and one month respectively. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 25.8.1998 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. The learned Sessions Judge, Mandi acquitted the petitioners on 26.9.2001 under Section 323 and 506 IPC but the findings under Section 354 IPC recorded by the learned trial Court holding the petitioners guilty was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge taking a lenient view has imposed only a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each under Section 354 IPC upon the petitioners. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the judgment dated 26.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi affirming the conviction of petitioners under Section 354 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 26.9.2001. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. PW-1 Smt. Ram Dei has deposed that in the year 1995, she was studying in 10+1. She was going to school at about 9.30 a.m. and her brother was walking ahead of her. Accused Partap Singh came from the maize fields and put up handkerchief on her mouth and pressed her breast. She raised an alarm and at that time two other accused also came and they tried to take her to maize fields. According to her, accused 3 Partap Singh had caught hold of her from her mouth and Ravi Singh had caught hold of her from her neck and Pawan Kumar was assisting them. When Kamla Devi came there, the accused persons ran away. PW-2 Kamla Devi was declared hostile. PW-3 Sher Singh is the brother of prosecutrix (PW-1). He has deposed that he was going with his sister to the school. When he heard an alarm, he saw that accused Partap Singh had put handkerchief on the mouth of his sister while Pawan Singh had caught hold of his sister and Ravi Singh was pressing her neck. He raised an alarm and thereafter, the accused persons ran away. PW-4, Sher Singh SHO had prepared the challan. PW-5 Dr. S. Agnihotri has examined the prosecutrix and found multiple small abrasions on the left hand, scratches on the left side, swelling on the lower lip and probable duration of the injuries was six hours. He has issued M.L.C. Ext. PW-5/A. He has stated that there was no injury of tooth bite on the left cheek. PW-6 Dev Raj had gone to the spot, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Dr. S. Agnihotri (PW-5) has not recorded any injury of tooth bite on the left cheek in the M.L.C. Ext. PW-5/A. The incident has taken place on 27.9.1995 at about 9.15 a.m.. The report was lodged at 1.15 p.m.. PW-1 was examined on 27.9.1995 at 4.00 p.m., i.e. after seven hours of the incident. Sufficient time has elapsed between the incident and when the prosecutrix was examined. The statement of prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that PW-5 has not recorded in the M.L.C. any tooth mark on the left cheek of the prosecutrix. In case the tooth bite is given exercising sufficient force, the marks would remain on the body for a considerable period and if the same is given by using lesser force, the marks are bound to disappear. PW-1 has been supported by 4 her brother PW-3. It has come in the evidence that the accused persons were on the spot and they have even tried to take the prosecutrix to maize fields. PW-1 has stated categorically that Partap Singh has pressed her breast. She has also stated that Ravi Singh had caught hold of her from neck and Pawan Singh was assisting them. The plea of false implication raised by Shri Ashwani Sharma is liable to be rejected. The school-going girl will never implicate any person just to harass him. The F.I.R. has been lodged within a reasonable period and the prosecutrix was also examined at 4.00 p.m. on 27.9.1995. The prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused persons under Section 354 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has thoroughly considered the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge has already taken a very lenient view by not sentencing the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment and only a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each has been imposed upon them. In view of the above observations, there is no force in this revision and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 9, 2008. (cr)