1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 178 of 1994 Date of decision: 02.04.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant -vs- Raj Kumar alias Raju Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For respondent : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Respondent was tried for an offence under Section 376 read with Section 511, I.P.C. for allegedly attempting rape on an in-door patient of Civil Hospital, Nahan. Respondent was employed as a Sweeper in the said Hospital at the relevant time. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that even though the prosecutrix in her own testimony as PW2 testified about the alleged attempt to rape her, by the respondent, her husband Shri Khushal Chand (PW3) did not corroborate her version. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. The prosecutrix stated that she was pushed into the labour room by the respondent and the string of her salwar had been broken on lateral side by the respondent and that when he was about to commit the offence, she raised alarm and on hearing cries, her husband Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 accompanied by his uncle came there, on seeing whom the respondent took to heals. The husband of the prosecutrix PW3 Khushal Singh stated that he did not go to the labour room but saw his wife in the verandah who told that she was attempted to be raped in the labour room. He stated that he saw one person running away but did not know if that person was the accused. The prosecutrix also stated that her bangles got broken when she was attempted to be raped and the pieces of the broken bangles were there in the labour room. Her husband denied that pieces of broken bangles were there in the labour room. He stated that the pieces of broken bangles were struck to the shawl of the prosecutrix. The string of the salwar, as per observation of the trial Court, was also not broken at the point testified by the prosecutrix. The trial Court noticed that only two inch long piece of string was knotted to the rest of the portion of the string, which fact belies the testimony of the prosecutrix that it got broken on the lateral side. For the fore-going reasons, we see no sound reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. . (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. April 02, 2008. (bm) 3 4