IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 399 of 2001 Date of decision : May 19, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Desh Raj and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Ms Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of the Magisterial Court, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Respondents were charged with the aforesaid offences, on the following allegations levelled against them by the police in the report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case was registered on 22nd January, 1995 at Police Station, Palampur, on the report of PW-1 Atma Ram. As per FIR, daughter of PW-1 Atma Ram had been assaulted with intent to outrage her modesty by respondent Desh Raj on 21st January, 1995, when she was going to attend the school as a student. She reported the matter to her father PW-1 Atma Ram. On return from office, PW-1 Atma Ram brought Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the incident to the notice of Pradhan of the Panchayat and also the Executive Engineer of the HPSEB, under whom PW-1 Atma Ram and respondent Desh Raj were working. Respondent Desh Raj was called by the Executive Engineer. He told the Executive Engineer that he had been following the daughter of PW-1 Atma Ram, as he wanted to marry her. It was further reported by PW-1 Atma Ram that because of the incident of 21st January, 1995 and its having been brought to the notice of the Pradhan of the Panchayat and the Executive Engineer, respondent Desh Raj and the other three respondents, namely Ganoo, Bidhi Chand and Sheela Devi, pelted stones at his brother’s wife Kala Devi (PW-3) and one Dhanno Devi (PW-2), on 22nd January, 1995 at 6 p.m., when they were going to fetch water from a village Bouri and that as a result of the pelting of the stones, the two ladies had received bleeding injuries. Both the ladies were got medically examined by the police. Various injuries were found on their person. PW-2 Dhanno Devi was having fracture of forehead also. 3. Prosecution examined Atma Ram as PW-1, Dhanno Devi as PW-2, Kala Devi as PW-3, daughter of Atma Ram, who had allegedly been assaulted on 21st January, 1995, as PW-5 (name of the girl withheld and she shall hereinafter be referred to as prosecutrix), and two girls, named Uma Devi PW-4 and Kushla Devi PW-6, who corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix. Doctor, who conducted the medico legal examination, was also examined. PW-9 Bimla Devi was examined as an eye witness of the pelting of stones, which allegedly took place on 22nd January, 1995. …3… 4. Trial Court has observed that there is enmity between the parties, as admitted by PW-1 Atma Ram and other witnesses and the present case appears to be due to such enmity and also the fact that respondent Desh Raj had also lodged a report with the police against PW-1 Atma Ram and injured ladies. 5. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 6. As per FIR Ex. PW-1/A lodged by PW-1 Atma Ram on 22nd January, 1995, his daughter, the prosecutrix, told him on 21st, in the evening, that respondent Desh Raj had assaulted her to outrage her modesty on 20th January, 1995 and that even on 21st January, 1995, on his asking, she had told that respondent Desh Raj had been teasing her earlier also. However, while in the witness box, he stated that the incident had taken place on 21st January, 1995, as disclosed by his daughter, the prosecutrix, and that his daughter did not tell him that earlier or subsequent to 20th January, 1995, she had been teased or assaulted by respondent Desh Raj. Prosecutrix, who appeared as PW-5, stated that the incident had taken place on 20th January, 1995. She stated that respondent Desh Raj touched her breasts and snatched her Dupatta. However, her co-students, PW-6 Kushla Devi and PW-4 Uma Devi, did not corroborate her testimony about the touching of her breasts. Contradiction in the date on which respondent Desh Raj allegedly teased the prosecutrix might not have been of much significance had there been no enmity between the parties and had PW-4 and PW6 also corroborated the prosecutrix. It has come in evidence that the parties are not on …4… visiting terms with each other from before the occurrence and that they are on inimical terms for some undisclosed reasons. 7. Prosecution did not examine the Pradhan of the Panchayat. It did examine the Executive Engineer, namely PW-8 S.P. Sood, who stated that a number of persons from the village of the parties came to him and complained that respondent Desh Raj was habitual of teasing girls on their way to the school and that they submitted a written complaint, Photostat copy mark ‘Y’. In mark ‘Y’, there is no specific allegation about respondent Desh Raj’s having assaulted the prosecutrix with intent to outrage her modesty. As per this complaint, respondent Desh Raj teased all the girls of the village on their way to the school and back home. However, there is no allegation that he ever touched any girl or assaulted her, leave alone the prosecutrix. This complaint was submitted to the Executive Engineer on 21st January, 1995. 8. Coming to the incident of hurling stones on 22nd January, 1995, as per FIR stones were hurled only by respondent Desh Raj, but the witnesses during the course of the trial stated that all the respondents had hurled stones, which hit the injured ladies, PW-2 Dhanni Devi and PW-3 Kala Devi. PW-2 Dhanni Devi could not state as to who hurled the stone that hit her forehead causing grievous injury. As already noticed, it is only respondent Desh Raj, who is named as the person who pelted stones. Other respondents are not named. Evidence led during the trial suggests that other respondents were also there and they too pelted stones. It is not clear from the evidence whether the stones thrown by respondent Desh Raj or by any other respondent hit the ladies. Therefore, it …5… cannot be said that stones pelted by respondent Desh Raj, who alone is named in the FIR, caused the injuries. 9. In view of the abovestated position, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. May 19, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J