IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.320 of 2008. Date of decision: 5.4.2008. State of H.P. ………. Petitioner Vs. Ashwani Kumar …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application of the State, for seeking leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 1.1.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kinnaur District at Reckong Peo in Police Challan No.78-2 of 2004, acquitting the respondent under Sections 451, 354, 506, and 323 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No.51 dated 19.8.2004 registered at Police Station Bhavanagar. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant was a tenant in the house of the accused in the year 2004 and was living with his wife PW-1 Padma Devi and children. On 17.8.2004 while complainant was on duty and children had left for school, Padma Devi was alone in the house and at about 10.30 a.m. accused entered in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… his house, caught Padma Devi from the neck with the intention to outrage her modesty and also threatened to do away with her life. Padma Devi narrated the incident to the complainant when he came to lunch in his house. The complainant approached the parents of the accused but they also tried to give beatings to them. The complainant approached the police. The respondent was tried for commission of offence under Sections 451, 354, 506, and 323 IPC. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 1.1.2008. 3. PW-1 Padma Devi has stated that on 17.8.2004 she was cleaning her room, her children left for school and husband had gone to his duty. At about 10.30 a.m. respondent entered into her house, caught her from the neck, closed the door and also threatened to do away with her life. The respondent behaved in indecent manner. She remained silent. She narrated the incident to her husband at about 1 p.m. On next day parents of the respondent came and even, they gave beatings to them. Thereafter they informed the police. PW-2 Rajinder Singh has stated that her wife informed him about the incident dated 17.8.2004. He approached the parents of the accused but they also gave beatings to him. PW-3 Dev Bhagat was declared hostile, he did not support the prosecution case. PW-6. Dr. Anita Kumari medically examined Padma Devi. She found bruise on the face below the right eye of Padma Devi. The FIR was registered on 19.8.2004 at about 10.40 a.m. The working place of the husband is just seven minutes walk from the place of occurrence. …3… 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has noticed in para-12 of the Judgment that story of the complainant that parents of the accused gave beatings to him his falsified by challan itself wherein it was not found that the parents of the accused gave beatings to the complainant and her husband. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained. PW-1 Padma Devi has stated that respondent caught hold her from the neck . She has not stated that respondent gave her beatings, therefore, bruise found on the face below the right eye of Padma Devi in MLC Ex.PW6/A is of no help to the prosecution. What type of force was used by the respondent has not been disclosed by PW-1 Padma Devi nor she has elaborated indecent manner of the respondent at the time of alleged occurrence. PW-1 Padma Devi has stated that she remained silent which is against natural conduct. How PW-1 reacted when respondent left the place that has also not come on record. No independent witness has been examined. It is not the prosecution case that the house of the complainant is located at isolated place and there are no other houses adjacent to the house of the complainant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and has taken a possible view in the judgment. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file appeal. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. April 5, 2008 (sks)