1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.301 of 200 Decided on September 27, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Chattar Singh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG For the Respondents: Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 16.2.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Session Trial No. 14-S-7 of 1999, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 23.7.1998 victim prosecutrix lodged report stating that she had gone to the forest Naldehra in the company of her sister in law (Nanad), namely, Bimla Devi to graze cattle on the previous day, i.e. on 22.7.1998. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 Around 2 or 2.30 PM, victim’s sister in law went to in a different direction with goats and she kept sitting near the cattle. At 3.30 PM, when she was sitting near the cattle, the accused appeared from behind and overpowered her. He dragged her to a point below a precipice and sexually assaulted her. She cried for help, but nobody came to her rescue. The accused after committing sexual assault, threatened the victim-prosecutrix that in case she complained to anybody about his conduct, she would be done to death. After alleged sexual assault, victim prosecutrix proceeded towards village along with her cattle. On the way, her sister in law, named, Bimla Devi met her and she narrated the incident to her and after some time, lady named Meera also met her and to that lady also, she complained about the sexual assault. Husband of the victim prosecutrix returned home in the evening around 8 or 8.30 PM. Then, victim prosecutrix told him about the incident . Next day, report was lodged and the victim was medically examined. After investigation, accused was charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to Session Court. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses, whereas through his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused denied the same. 4. PW-2 Sant Ram, husband of the victim prosecutrix, PW-3 Bimla Devi and PW-4 Meera Devi has made endeavour to support the prosecution case. PW-7 Dr. Rajeev Sood, has deposed that he did not notice any injury or mark of struggle on any part of the body of the victim prosecutrix and that the victim 3 prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. PW-3 and PW-4 corroborates the victim prosecutrix’s statement. 5. In the cross examination, victim prosecutrix and her husband have admitted that the victim prosecutrix had signed some paper during investigation of the case. A specific suggestion was put to them on behalf of the defence that the victim prosecutrix had sworn an affidavit that no crime had been committed against her by the accused and that the report lodged with the police was not true. 6. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record coupled with the medical report, it could be inferred that the victim-prosecutrix was the major lady and was carrying pregnancy at the time of alleged offence and no jury or mark of struggle was found visible regarding sexual assault. In these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in our considered view, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the le-arned Sessions Judge. The criminal appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 7. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/respondent, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 27th September, 2010 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl) 4