IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.574 of 2008 Decided on: June 06, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Petitioner. VERSUS Mast Ram ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The State, by way of this petition, is seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.3-S/10 of 2008 acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Kanta Devi reported to the police that respondent Mast Ram belongs to her village and the land of Mast Ram abuts her land. Mast Ram interfered in her land and when she objected to this, then he threatened to do away their lives. On 5.1.2007 at about 11 A.M. she proceeded to Theog from her home and when she reached near Khachi Mor at about 12 P.M., Mast Ram suddenly appeared and after Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… seeing her alone, he obstructed her path, caught hold her from arms and put his hand in her breast. She cried and pushed him back. Mast Ram laid her down and none was present at that place. On this, case was registered vide F.I.R. Ext.PW-2/C at Police Station, Theog. Complainant Kanta Devi was also medically examined vide MLC Ext.PW-5/A. The respondent was tried for having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323 and 506 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Theog in case No.37-1 of 2007 convicted the respondent on 24.12.2007 under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC but acquitted him under Section 354 IPC. The respondent was accordingly sentenced on 27.12.2007. The respondent assailed his conviction and sentence by way of appeal which has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 28.3.2008, hence, this petition by the State seeking leave to file appeal. 2. Heard learned Additional Advocate General and perused the judgments of trial Court as well as lower appellate Court. It is the case of PW-1 Kanta Devi complainant herself that nobody was present on the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed in the impugned judgment that according to the prosecutrix PW-1 Smt.Kanta Devi she was over powered by the respondent at lonely place and he tried to outrage her modesty which caused injuries to her. The further allegations are that the incident was partly witnessed by passengers of Trax vehicle which was coming from Narkanda side and they brought her from the spot to Police Station, which is at a distance of 4 – 6 kilometers, but no such passenger has been examined. The other witnesses have not …3… corroborated the version of complainant. PW-3 Shiv Ram is not the eye witness. The prosecutrix in her cross examination has herself admitted that she had given wrong statement in the Court that the accused pressed her breast or outraged her modesty. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that from the F.I.R. itself motive against the respondent to involve in false case is clear. In the background of the relations of the parties, it is not safe to convict the respondent on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Once the prosecutrix herself has admitted that her allegations regarding outraging the modesty against the respondent are not correct then it is not safe to believe that her rest of statement implicating the respondent is true. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that PW-5 Dr.Pawan Sharma has noticed that the injuries can be caused by fall on hard surface and on bushes. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the material on record. No case has been made out for grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment. Hence, leave to appeal refused and the petition is dismissed. June 06, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)