IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2002. Date of decision:8.12.2008. State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Anil Kumar .. ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th July, 2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Rekong Peo in Criminal Case No.100-2 of 96 whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 186 and 353 IPC. Briefly stated, the prosecution version is that the complainant PW-1 Sonam Patti is a TGT teacher in Government Middle School, Lower Kanam. She was working as Lady Supervisor for the examination being held in the school on 23.3.1996. According to the prosecution on the said date, the accused Anil Kumar left the examination hall without the permission of the Supervisor. When he was confronted by the Lady Supervisor he submitted a written apology to her. The complainant Sonam Potti alleges that on 25.3.1996 at about 12.30 a.n. when she was on her way to …2… school to attend duty the accused Anil Kumar came from the opposite side along with some other students. He stopped the complainant near the bridge going towards Kanam village and asked the complainant to return the written apology which he had submitted to her on 23.3.1996. Thereafter, he also blocked the path of the complainant and obstructed her from going to her place of duty. He also threatened to kill her. On the allegations of the complainant FIR was registered, investigation done and the case filed. The accused has been acquitted after trial. Hence, the present appeal. The prosecution in its support has examined the complainant Sonam Patti and three other eye witnesses. As far as the statement of Sonam Patti is concerned she has made a number of improvements in her statement made in the Court. Though in her complaint dated 25.3.1996 there were no allegations of her being slapped, in Court she states that the accused slapped her and also tried to throw her down. She however admits that there were 2-3 boys who came there and then the accused left her and then she filed the complaint with the Principal of the school. However, none of the independent witnesses has supported the complainant. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 are students of the school and they have denied that any such occurrence took place in their presence. None of the eye-witnesses have supported the complainant. As far as the statement of the complainant is concerned the …3… same is full of improvements and contradictions. The learned trial Court rightly did not rely upon the statement of the complainant alone and acquitted the accused. I find no error in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal is rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. December 8, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge