IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL RADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 83/2005 Date of decision: 14.9.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Bir Singh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate. Surinder Singh, Judge. (Oral) The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 354 Indian Penal Code was reversed in Criminal Appeal No. 15-P/X/2004 decided on 17.11.2004 by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the State is in appeal on the ground that the learned first appellate court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - 3. Brief facts of the case as is decipherable from the prosecution evidence on record can be stated thus. On 13th August, 2002, complainant (PW1) was alone in her house. During night around 8.30 p.m. she came out of her house and came across the respondent her neighbour. On seeing her, he is alleged to have caught-hold of her arm and pressed her breast. On this, she raised hue and cry. On hearing it, PW2 Salochana Devi and her son PW3 Randhir Singh @ Niku came to the spot. On seeing them, respondent ran-away. 4. Next day in the evening FIR Ext. PW1/A was lodged by the complainant but she refused to get herself medically examined. At the time of lodging of the FIR, her mother was also present. There was delay of 22 hours in lodging the FIR. According to the prosecutrix, the delay was attributable to the fact that her husband was not present in the house. But it is nowhere stated that as to when her husband came to the house and what conversation took place with him and further that how the mother of the prosecutrix came to know about the incident. Even she was not examined as to what complainant had revealed to her. In cross- examination, she (PW1) denied any litigation with - 3 - the respondent prior to the alleged incident and also that always there have been quarrel inter se them due to throwing of the garbage and water. She also denied having taken place any dispute with respect to it between them three days prior to the alleged incident, i.e., on 10th August, 2002. However, she admitted that their village is thickly populated village where about 36 family reside. Whereas PW2 Salochana Devi her close relative shattered her version. The complainant is closely related to her being daughter-in-law of her younger brother. She stated that respondent had retired from the Army and since when he is settled down in his village, he had landed dispute with the complainant and the relations between them are so deteriorated that even they are not in speaking and visiting terms with each other. They had also boycotted to participate in the functions of each other. She further admitted that there is continuity of dispute between both the parties sometimes on the water and sometimes with respect to throwing of garbage. She admitted that on 10th August, 2002 there had been a quarrel between the respondent and the complainant over water, thereafter she did not notice any dispute between them. - 4 - 5. On the total analysis of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it is apparent that because of the strained relations between both the parties since long and also the close relationship of the witnesses with the complainant coupled with the fact that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR which has given time for deliberations, raises a doubt on the probity of the prosecution case. 6. Even PW3 Randhir Singh @ Niku (aged about 15 years) son of PW2 cannot be said to be an independent witness. He also admitted that they are not in visiting terms in the house of the respondent due to their land dispute but admitted cordiality with the complainant. Even respondent in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that relations between him and the complainant party are not cordial. 7. PW6 H.C. Surjeet Singh admitted that there are about 100/200 houses in the village. In such a thickly populated village, it would have been easy to get an independent witness from the vicinity who could have revealed about the alleged incident. - 5 - 8. DW1 Smt. Kalpana Chaudhary Pradhan stated that respondent enjoyed good reputation in the village. He has retired as Hawildaar from the Army. She also admitted about the civil disputes inter-se the parties and further stated that the complainant is a lady of quarrel some nature. 9. On the dispassionate analysis of the evidence on record, there is lack of strong corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The alleged eye witnesses are proved to be interested persons and inimically disposed of towards the respondent. The statement of the prosecutrix is also not corroborative in material particulars. She also refused to get herself medically examined. Had she been medically examined, it could have offered some evidence of corroborative nature to stamp her statement with truthfulness in absence of which, in my opinion, prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Since I find no perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned first appellate Court as such the present appeal merit dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. - 6 - 11. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the trial of this case. September 14, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge