IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.503 of 2002 Date of decision : April 28, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Krishan Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Krishan Lal, who was charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent was sent up for trial, on the basis of a report lodged with the police by PW-3 on 3rd July, 1999 at 12.45 (midnight), per which on that night around 11.30 when she alongwith her friend Reema Devi was present in her house, the respondent, her neighbour, came there, in a drunken state and embraced her, with bad intention, upon which she picked up a drat to defend herself, but the respondent snatched the drat from her and ran away, leaving his pair of Chappals on the spot. She further reported that in the process of snatching of drat, she sustained an injury on the thumb of her right hand. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… On the basis of that report case was formally registered. Prosecutrix (PW-3) was got medically examined on the next following day. Doctor noticed an injury 1cm long and 2mm deep on the medial aspect at distal interphalangeal joint. On the completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed against the respondent. 3. Prosecution examined the prosecutrix and her friend Reema Devi (PW-4), who was at her place on that night, as also a lady living in the neighbourhood, namely PW-2 Jamna Devi, who reached the spot on hearing the cries. 4. Though the prosecutrix (PW-3) and Reema Devi (PW-4) testified that the respondent went to the house of the prosecutrix, in a drunken state, and assaulted her, with intent to outrage her modesty and that when with a view to protecting herself the prosecutrix picked up a drat, the respondent snatched that and in the process the prosecutrix sustained an injury to her thumb, yet on the basis of some contradictions and improbabilities appearing in the prosecution evidence, learned trial Magistrate did not believe the prosecution version and acquitted the respondent. 5. Admittedly, the parties are not having cordial relations, because there is a dispute between the respondent and the prosecutrix as the latter unauthorizedly uses the latrine of the respondent. 6. Even though the prosecutrix testified in the Court, as also reported to the police, per statement, under Section …3… 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ex. PW-6/A, that the respondent came to her house and assaulted her, with a view to outraging her modesty, yet to the doctor, who conducted her medical examination, on the next following day, she told that she had had a quarrel with her cousin brother over a property dispute on the previous day and sustained the injury on her thumb. Doctor recorded this fact in the medico legal report and also testified, while in the witness-box as PW-1. This contradiction has weighed heavily with the trial Magistrate. 7. Prosecution made no attempt to reconcile the earliest version given to the police and the narration given to the doctor by the prosecutrix as to the manner in which she sustained the injury. 8. Medico legal report, Ex. PW-1/A, became available to the police on the very day of the medical examination of the prosecutrix, as is clear from the fact that a police Officer received the medical report from the doctor on 3rd July, 1999, itself. When in the medico legal report a different version about the manner in which the injury was sustained by the prosecutrix appeared, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to have further inquired into the matter or atleast he should have reconciled the two contradictory versions by further investigating the matter. 9. The above contradiction in the earliest versions given to the police and the doctor apart, it appears that the story about the respondent having left his pair of Chappal on the spot is concocted. There is no mention in the earliest …4… version given to the police that the respondent left a pair of his Chappal behind when fleeing. Also, it has come in the evidence that size of the Chappal is ‘seven’ and the size of the shoe of a son of the prosecutrix is also ‘seven’. Size of respondent’s shoe, per him, is ‘nine’. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that the reasoning given by the trial Magistrate for acquitting the respondent is perverse. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 28, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J