IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.151 of 2005. Date of Decision: 21st September, 2011. ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Pawan Kumar ..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : Challenge in this appeal is to the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 341, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. In the year 2003, PW2 Renu Bala (complainant) was a Clerk in H.P.S.E.B. Sub Division, Suni. In the same office her husband Hira Mani (PW3) was employed as a Senior Assistant. They belong to village Thalli. It is Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - alleged that on 12.5.2003, at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant was going on foot alone to attend her duties in the office. When she reached near forest-hut, the respondent suddenly appeared in her front, blocked her way, caught hold her from the arm and dragged towards forest. This resulted into breaking of her bangles and sustained injuries on her wrist. The respondent is alleged to have given teeth bites on her cheek and breast and her shirt also got torn from near the neck. PW1 Girdhari Lal reached the spot. On seeing him, the respondent ran away, but while running threatened her that he would not leave her to show her face in the society. 4. According to the complainant, in the aforesaid scuffle, she also lost her gold-chain. She immediately went to her office and contacted her husband. Thereafter went to the private clinic of Shri Ghan Shyam. He did not provide any first-aid. Then she went to Police Station, Karsog alongwith her husband and reported the matter. 5. The complainant was got medically examined in the C.H., Karsog. The police took into possession the Medico-Legal Certificate. The complainant also - 3 - handed over the torn cloths which were taken into possession by the police. Police proceeded to spot and took into possession the broken bangles. After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court against the respondent for his trial. He was accordingly charge-sheeted to which he denied and pleaded not guilty. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon by him. According to the respondent, the complainant and her husband are quarrelsome persons. They have implicated the co- villagers in false cases and this was also a false case, against him. From the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it is also revealed that the respondent was a witness against the complainant in a case lodged by Narsingh Dass. The respondent had also examined six witnesses in defence. 7. Rapat Ext.DA lodged by Narsingh Dass against the complainant was proved through DW1 HC Balam Ram. DW2 HC Tek Ram has proved FIRs No.114 and - 4 - 115 of 1997, Exts.DB and DC. DW3 HHC Pawan Kumar proved photocopies of reports of the complaints filed by Narsingh Dass and Gopal Verma, Exts. DD and DE, respectively, against the complainant and her husband. He also examined DW4 Roshan Lal to prove that the complainant herself had torn her shirt while going to her office. DW5 Thakur Dass is a witness to the effect that the complainant had given beatings to Narsingh Dass, who had lodged the reports against her, whereas DW6 Ramesh Kumar stated that on the day of the alleged incident respondent met complainant by chance while she was going to attend the office and she immediately retorted as to why he had become the henchman of Narsingh Dass aforesaid. 8. The learned trial Court on the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence took note of the fact that PW1 Girdhari Lal an alleged eye witness did not support prosecution version and there was no substance in the charges leveled against the respondent, as such he was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. 9. On the reappraisal of the evidence, I find that the star witness PW1 Girdhari Lal on which explicit - 5 - reliance was put by the complainant had turned hostile. He did not support the case of the complainant at all. He is also an employee of the same office and also a co-villager of the complainant. He categorically stated that the complainant only took lift from him in a vehicle to go to Police Station, whereas, the complainant during cross-examination admitted the litigation with Narsingh Dass and also few other persons of the village. Teeth bites on her body were not substantiated by PW9 Dr. Parkash Verma. According to him, there were some faint marks, but he could not ascertain whether those were bite marks. Her testimony with respect to the alleged incident, in view of the aforesaid evidence is not inspiring confidence. Her husband PW3 Hira Mani though stated that the shirt of his wife was torn from the front and there were bleeding injuries on her wrist, but with respect to the injuries there is no medical evidence and insofar as the tearing of the shirt is concerned, for that DW4 stated that he had seen herself tearing the shirt from the side of the neck and thereafter she went to the office. The defence raised stands probablised. - 6 - 10. Further, initial story of the complainant that her modesty was outraged by the respondent at a lonely place behind the “Peepal” tree which was secluded place, but in the end of cross-examination she stated that houses of Man Dass and Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat are located nearby. Pertinently, these houses have not been shown in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and she has also not stated anywhere that she raised any hue and cry in order to attract the persons or passers-bye to same herself. It has also come in the evidence that the complainant and her husband are quarrelsome persons and locked in various types of litigation with the colleagues as well as in the vicinity. 11. PW6 Lalit Kumar is the nephew of the complainant, who is alleged to have reached the spot after PW1 Girdhari Lal had reached on hearing cries, but complainant did not state about raising of any cry. He has also nowhere stated that his house is situated nearby. Even his house has not been shown in the site plan by the Investigating Officer except the house of complainant which is shown at a little - 7 - distance away of the alleged incident. He also being a close relation and appears to be a procured one. 12. I have gone through the judgment of learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has only made mention of the above evidence, though not critically examined, yet came to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution with respect to the alleged incident is not worth inspiring confidence but on my independent examination of the prosecution evidence in the light of defence evidence and the explanation rendered by the respondent, my conclusion remains same that the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be converted into conviction. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of this case. 14. Send down the record. September 21, 2011. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)