IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2001. Decided on: 8.7.2008. __________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Vijay Mohil and others. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents 1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge.(Oral) The respondents were prosecuted in criminal case No. 140/2 of 2000 under Sections 452, 294, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur and were acquitted on 25.5.2001. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial Court necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that on 21.10.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. at place Muhalla Shamsher Ganj, Nahan, all the accused persons in furtherance of common intention after having made preparation to annoy and pick up quarrel with the complainant Smt. Anuradha Mohil committed criminal trespass in her residential house 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 situate at Muhalla Shamsher Ganj, Nahan and gave her severe beatings by fist and kick blows. The matter was reported to the police and consequently, F.I.R. Ext. PW1/A was lodged. The matter was investigated by ASI Dharam Pal (PW6). He prepared the site plan Ext.PW6/A. The challan was put up. The prosecution had examined as many as six witnesses to prove its case. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court has acquitted the respondents on 25.5.2001. Hence, this appeal by the State. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 25.5.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment dated 25.5.2001. PW-1 Smt. Anuradha Mohil has deposed that on 21.10.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., she was working in her kitchen, when accused Ajay Mohil and 3-4 boys came near her house and started blowing whistle in the vicinity. They also started doing indecent and obscene acts near her house. She asked her husband Inderpal Singh to tell these boys to stop doing indecent and obscene acts. According to her, her husband went near accused Ajay Mohil and asked them to stop their indecent acts. She further deposed that her husband gave telephonic call to Ajay Mohil’s father to ask his son to stop obscene acts publicly. According to her, she was given beatings by the respondents when she was preparing meal. She raised alarm and her cousin Vikram Singh and maternal nephew Parshanna came to the spot and rescued her from the accused persons. The accused persons while escaping from the spot criminally intimidated 3 her with dire consequences. It has come in her statement that her ‘Jeth’, ‘Jethani’ and mother-in-law also reside in the same house. Neither her ‘Jeth’ nor ‘Jethani’ nor mother-in-law has been cited as witness by the prosecution. Similarly, she had admitted that the houses of Love Parmar and Dharam Pal are situated nearby. If she had raised alarm, these persons were bound to come to her rescue. PW-2 is closely related to PW-1. He has also admitted that ‘Jeth’ and ‘Jethani’ of the complainant are residing in the same house but they did not come to the spot at the time of alleged quarrel. He has admitted that witness Parshanna was not present at the spot at the time of alleged quarrel. The alleged eye witnesses Parshanna and Inderpal Singh were given up by the prosecution. The sole independent witness PW-4 Smt. Shankutla Devi has also not supported the prosecution version and she was declared hostile. PW-6 ASI Dharam Pal has admitted that adjacent to the house of complainant, there are houses of Dharam Pal and Luv Parmar situate at a distance of 8-10 feet but it has not come in his statement that these persons were interrogated during the course of investigation. The statement of PW-1 Anuradha Mohil that she was given beatings has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. If she had raised alarm, her ‘Jeth’ and ‘Jethani’ would have definitely come to her rescue. The houses of S/Shri Love Parmar and Dharam Pal are adjacent to the house of the complainant. These two persons have not been joined during the course of investigation. PW-2 is closely related to the complainant. Parshanna and Inderpal Singh had been given up. PW-4 4 has been declared hostile. The trial Court on the basis of correct appreciation of the evidence has acquitted the respondents. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. Bail/surety bonds are discharged. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 8, 2008. (cr)