IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 677 of 2002 Decided on: 7.11.2009 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….appellant Versus Laiq Ram ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) State has appealed against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 30th August, 2001, at about 9 p.m., the prosecutrix wife of Shri Madan Lal was working in her kitchen. Her two sons were studying in the adjoining room. In the meantime, respondent is alleged to have come there with intent to out rage her modesty and annoy her. It is also the case of the prosecution that the respondent had scuffled with the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - prosecutrix and in that scuffle, her bangles were broken. She raised the shrieks and cries which were heard by one of her sons who came to rescue her. Sahi Ram along with his son Chander Mohan also came to the spot and relieved her from the clutches of the respondent. Her husband Madan Lal had also come there. The mater was reported to the Pradhan of the Grampanchayat next day, who in turn advised them to lodge the repot in the Police Station. Consequently on 1st September, 2001 FIR Ext.PA was lodged by the prosecutrix under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation of this case was assigned to PW5 Head Constable Sehdev of Police Post Sangrah. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. PW5/A of the place of incident and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. Finding a prima facie case against the respondent, he was charge-sheeted under - 3 - the aforesaid Sections, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and mainly relied upon the statements of the prosecutrix and her son Sandeep Kumar (PW2) and also Chander Mohan (PW3) but Madan Lal her husband and Sahi Ram both were not examined and Chander Mohan aforesaid did not support the case of prosecution. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incident. However, he took up the stand that there was an altercation with the complainant and her husband over the use of water for irrigation during the day time and he lodged his report in Police Post Sangrah against the complainant party. Thus, in order to create a defense, a false case was lodged against him. Respondent did not lead any evidence in defense. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted and his acquittal has been challenged in this appeal. - 4 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. At the very outset, as stated above, the independent witness Chander Mohan (PW3) did not support the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile and in the cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing material could be extracted from him and even he denied the relevant portion of his statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The another witness PW4 Jagat Ram, Pradhan of the Panchayat to whom the prosecutrix is alleged to have complained on 31st August, 2001, has also not substantiated the version as given by the prosecutrix. According to PW2 Sandeep Kumar son of the prosecutrix, at the relevant time, he was studying in the room adjoining to the kitchen and on hearing the cries of his mother, he came out and saw that the respondent was intoxicated and was scuffling with his mother. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that during the day time, there was an altercation with - 5 - the respondent over the turn for irrigation with his parents. But he denied that the present case was foisted upon the respondent as a counter-blast. In view of the above conflicting statements, the version given by the prosecutrix needs to be noticed. As PW1 the prosecutrix stated that the respondent was drunk and started taking liberties with her when she was cooking food in her kitchen. She did not make any reference in FIR about the fact that respondent was drunk. She further stated that the respondent scuffled with her. Her children were not there thus she cried, on this her son came there. As already stated above, she had two sons who were studying in the adjoining room but she did not name which of the son had come to the spot on hearing her cries. She also stated in the FIR that in the scuffle, her bangles had also broken but neither she nor Investigating Officer when examined in the court had testified this fact and even broken bangles were not recovered from the spot in order to lend corroboration in her version. - 6 - The defense version stands probablised. Pertinently in her cross- examination, she stated that during the day time, respondent had picked-up a quarrel with her, on the turn for using the water for irrigation in the field which resulted into the FIR, which was lodged by the respondent against her and her husband. She categorically admitted that she lodged the case against the respondent after respondent had lodged the report against them in the Police Station but she denied that it was a counter-blast. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I do not find the statement of the prosecutrix consistent, convincing and credible. Therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is merit less and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is accordingly discharged of his bail bond entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. (Surinder Singh),J. November 7, 2009. (cm)