IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 371 of 2003. Date of Decision: 20th August, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Guman Singh ..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala and Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocates. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The State has felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, filed the instant appeal. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated thus. On 8.1.2001, the prosecutrix was in her house Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - sitting in a room alongwith her brother-in-law (PW-2). Around 7.30 p.m. the respondent started kicking at the door of the Verandah in the first storey. When she opened the door, all of a sudden the respondent caught her from her breast. She raised a noise. Her brother-in-law PW-2 Roshan Lal came out from the room and rescued her. The respondent fled away and threatened her with dire consequences. It is alleged that the prosecutrix was assaulted by the respondent to outrage her modesty. The case was registered and the police investigated the case and after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and on the completion of the Challan it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted. 4. There was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR. The alleged incident took place on 8.1.2001. The FIR was lodged on 12.1.2001. 5. In cross-examination the prosecutrix as PW-1 stated that on the next day, i.e., on 9.1.2001 she had gone to lodge the FIR to the Police Station, the police also visited them on the same day and returned on 10.1.2001. She further stated that no proceedings were conducted by the police on the spot because it had gone dark. However, she did not state as to what - 3 - proceedings were conducted by them on the spot except having been orally enquired about the incident. 6. PW-4 ASI Mool Raj did not corroborate her above version. He simply stated that the FIR was lodged on 12.1.2001 and police visited the spot on 13.1.2001 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thus the version of the prosecutrix that immediately FIR was lodged after the alleged occurrence has been found to be incorrect. Although, this fact alone would not be sufficient to discard her version, if found otherwise correct. But, in my opinion, her version does not inspire confidence at all. 7. Because, the case of the respondent has been that the prosecutrix was married to DW-1 Ishwar Dass, his cousin and there was some dispute regarding the divorce which was to be settled through him. That was the reason he visited the house of prosecutrix, but denied the incident aforesaid. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix denied that she was at all married to Ishwar Dass (DW-1), which fact has been falsified by her own witness PW-2 Roshan Lal her brother-in-law. He clearly admitted that the first marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with DW-1 Ishwar Dass. - 4 - 8. Against the aforesaid background, the statement of the prosecutrix has to be examined still more carefully and with due caution. 9. The prosecutrix stated that she was molested as aforesaid in the Verandah, which was shown at point “A” in the site plan Ext.PW4/A, immediately when she opened the door. But when examined in the Court, she stated that it was around 6.30 p.m., she alongwith her brother-in-law (PW-2) was sitting in the room and somebody was shouting and kicking the door from outside, when she opened the door of the Verandah, the respondent entered into the room adjacent to the other room, where her brother-in-law was sitting and told her to switch on the light, but there was no electric connection in her house. She asked him as to why he came there during night time, on this he started to embrace, also caught hold of her from ponny-tail and tried to outrage her modesty. She shouted for her brother-in-law and he alongwith PW-3 Dhani Devi came there and relieved her from his clutches. 10. Significantly, the name of Dhani Devi PW3 has not been mentioned in the FIR. Secondly, her version is contrary to the FIR with respect to the place of occurrence, thirdly, there is only one room as shown in the site plan. - 5 - 11. The manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place and the place of occurrence both have become doubtful, in view of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses which sharply contradict the prosecution story as initially set-up. 12. It is also important to note that according to the prosecutrix, there was no light inside when PW-2 was attracted by the noise in the distant room, he went therein and saw the alleged incident. He did not say that PW-3 Dhani Devi had also visited the spot. As per the site plan, her residence is adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix and she was residing in the first storey. On hearing the noise, she allegedly went to the house of the prosecutrix and she also witnessed the said incident in the same manner as stated by PW2 above, which is quite unbelievable because the respondent would not have remained in the same position for sufficiently long time till the arrival of PW-3 aforesaid. 12. The respondent admitted having visited the house of the prosecutrix, but according to him, he had gone there to concile the matter with respect to divorce inter se with her previous husband DW-1 who is his cousin for the reason that he had re-married without a valid divorce. DWs-1, 2 and 3 have probablized the defence - 6 - version and the incident in question appears to be incorrect. 13. Thus, the view taken by the learned trial Court is reasonable and is borne out from the evidence on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. The appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed. 14. The respondent is discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. August 20, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)