IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 431 of 2003 Date of decision: 16.06.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Raju … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Mandi, dated 10.6.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the notice of accusation put up to him under Sections 341 and 354 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.10.2000, at about 2.45 P.M., a report was lodged with the police by Smt. Kunta Devi that on the previous day, at about 6.00 P.M., she was coming alongwith Bimla Devi from her in-laws house to her parents’ house and got down from the bus at Surandhi Pul Nehar. There is a shop of one Kassu, where one boy Raju - respondent was sitting. Her sister met her there who was purchasing meat and both 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the sisters were proceeding to their parents house. It was alleged that thereafter said Raju came there, caught hold of her from the breast and pressed her breast and then threw her on the ground and sat on her chest. She raised an alarm. Her sister tried to rescue her and Raju, also gave beatings to her. Respondent also took away her golden ear ring, a golden nose pin(Tili) and one purse having Rs.5020/-, which was snatched by him and took these articles with him. She further alleged that many persons had gathered there including one Hans Raj, who picked her up from the ground and had seen the respondent running from the spot. The report was lodged on the next date. On this report, a case was registered and the challan was put up before the learned trial Court under Sections 341 and 354 I.P.C. only, who tried the respondent, leading to his acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that statement of complainant Kunta Devi had been substantiated by her sister PW-2 Bimla Devi who was also going alongwith her at the relevant time. However, these statements have not been relied upon by the learned trial Court by giving five reasonings. I am not in agreement with the whole reasonings given by the learned trial Court. The first reasoning given was that there was enmity in between the parties. It is on record that the respondent was also from the village of the parents of the complainant and as such, was known to the complainant as well as her sister. A plea of false implication has been taken as well as litigation in between the parties, which has not been substantiated by any evidence led by the respondent. However, 3 this fact cannot be ignored that a plea was taken which has not been substantiated and there may be some dispute in between the parties since the respondent was from the village of the complainant. 5. The second point which has been taken by the learned trial Court, that is, the delay in lodging the FIR as the occurrence took place on 15.10.2000 at about 6.00 P.M., whereas the FIR was lodged on 16.10.2000 at about 2.45 P.M. The complainant has alleged in the report and has substantiated in her statement that she firstly came to her in-laws house and then went to the house of her parents and then lodged the report. The complainant was a married woman and, therefore, had to consult her parents as well as in-laws and the mere fact that there was some delay in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said to be fatal for the prosecution story. However, in such a situation, the evidence of the prosecution has to be appreciated with more care and caution. 6. The third point taken by the learned trial Court was that the complainant had made allegations that the respondent also took away one pair of golden ear ring, one golden nose pin and a purse consisting of Rs.5000/- from the possession of the complainant while committing offence under sections 354 and 341 I.P.C., which plea has not been substantiated and, therefore, the challan was not filed under Section 379 I.P.C. In their statements as PW-1 Kunta Devi and PW-2 Bimla Devi have also not stated anything in regard to the theft of these articles committed by the respondent. Even in case the allegations made by the complainant in this regard had not been substantiated, the complainant could have stated herself, which could have made her story reliable and the fact that this plea was taken in 4 regard to the theft of articles which was not substantiated by any evidence and was not reiterated by the complainant and her sister, therefore, this was taken as a ground for not believing the prosecution story. 7. The fourth circumstance taken by the learned trial Court is that the independent witnesses who had reached the spot, had not supported the prosecution story and there was necessity of independent witnesses. There was no question of independent corroboration to the said allegations made by the complainant substantiated by her sister. However, if some independent witness had reached the spot, corroboration from his statement was required. In such circumstances, the statement of the complainant becomes doubtful. The complainant allegedly named one person Hans Raj having come to the spot apart from the other persons. The said Hans Raj was examined as PW-6, but when examined, he had not substantiated the allegations made by the complainant, though the complainant substantiated that he had picked her from the ground and had seen the respondent running from the spot. However, this witness has not substantiated the allegations made by the complainant and, therefore, the statements of the complainant and her sister become doubtful. This witness was known to the complainant’s father, but had stated that he does not know what dispute had taken at the spot. He admitted that several other persons also came to the spot and the prosecution has examined PW-5 Kashmir Singh in this regard, who has not substantiated that he came to the spot or saw the occurrence and has not supported the prosecution story. It also looks unbelievable that respondent will attempt to commit the 5 offence, when at some distance several persons were present at the shop. 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasonings given by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), June 16, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6