IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M) No. 803/2010 Date of decision: 12. 8. 2010 State of H.P. ….Petitioner Versus Rattan lal ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Bansal Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate. For the respondent : None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Prosecutrix lodged a report in Police Station Bharari for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code against her brother-in-law respondent Rattan lal in terms of FIR No. 102 of 2005. At the time of lodging the report, she was accompanied by her husband Sh. Jai Ram. On 29.8.2005, there was a village fair. She stated that she was working in Sweet shop. Around 10 p.m. when she went out side to defecate, respondent came to the spot and caught-hold of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - her. She offered resistance and cried for help. On this, PW3 Sandhya Devi came there. She gave slaps and fisticuffed the respondent and rescued her. In the meantime, Rinki @ Vivek Soni, Ganga Singh and PW Anil Kumar came there. Respondent kept on abusing her even in their presence. Prosecutrix and Sandhya are alleged to have sustained simple injuries on their arms and legs. Police investigated the case and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 2. Respondent was tried and acquitted of the said offences against which the present leave to appeal has been sought. 3. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the prosecution had examined eight witnesses, including the Prosecutrix. Rinki @ Vivek Soni was not produced and examined in the Court but during the investigation of the case, his presence was held to be doubtful by the investigating officer. 4. Admittedly, there is an old rivalry between the parties. PW8 Anil Kumar also admitted that ties between his family and that of the respondent are strained. His statement was also diametrically opposed to the statements of the - 3 - complainant and PW3 Sandhya Devi. He stated that he was all alone and rescued the Prosecutrix whereas PW3 Sandhya Devi stated that she rescued her and there were many persons on the spot. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution that the Prosecutrix and Sandhya Devi are god- sisters and PW8 is son of PW3 Sandhya Devi. They have also admitted strained relations with the respondents. 5. Learned trial Court rightly observed on the scrutiny of evidence that there were about 100 shops in the Mela at the time of the alleged occurrence. 40/50 people had gathered on the spot but no attempt was made to include an independent witness who had witnessed the incident to substantiate the story of the Prosecutrix, which was imperative to lend strength to the prosecution case against the above back-ground. 6. On the close scrutiny and examining the evidence with due care and caution I also find material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the story of Prosecutrix can also not be believed for want of corroboration from independent source. Thus the respondent was rightly acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. - 4 - Nothing was brought to my notice that the aforesaid findings were incorrect or dehors the evidence on record. Therefore, in these circumstances leave to appeal cannot be granted, hence petition is rejected. August 12, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)