HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 109 of 2004 Decided on: 5.10.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Ganga Ram ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, dated 15.11.2003, vide which he accepted the appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chopal, District Shimla, dated 21.8.2001, vide which the respondent had been held guilty under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and was sentenced as under: Section 354 IPC SI for three months Section 506 IPC SI for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 15 days. ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.1.2001 at 2.00 p.m. a report was lodged with the police by the complainant Bindi Devi that today at about 7.00 a.m., she had gone to the collect the leaves and her sister was also there at some distance from her. The accused came, caught hold of her from her breast and dragged her. She raised an alarm and her sister Sevti, who was working nearby, came there and the accused ran away. While leaving the place, he gave a threat to her. On this, a report was lodged with the police and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent for the offences mentioned above leading to his conviction as detailed above. 3. An appeal was filed by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, which was assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who accepted the said appeal leading to the present appeal being preferred by the State of H.P. against the acquittal of the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. On appraisal of the record of the case, statements of the complainant and her sister can be said to be most material. PW-1 Smt.Bindi Devi is the complainant, who has stated that she was collecting leaves from the forest at 7.00 a.m. and her sister was also working at some distance. The accused came there and asked her as to why she was collecting the leaves and said something. She further stated that thereafter the respondent caught hold of her from her breast and dragged her and she fell down. Then she raised an alarm and on this, her sister came there and the accused - 3 - ran away. While leaving the place, the accused also gave a threat to her that in case she told the incident to any person, he would not leave her. She further stated that she did not sustain any injury but in this process, her shirt was torn from the neck, salwar near the knees and her Dhatu was also torn while the respondent was dragging her to the bushes. 6. PW-2 Sevti Devi, sister of the complainant PW- 1 Bindi Devi, stated that she reached at the spot on hearing the cries of her sister since she was at some distance. She further stated that when she reached there, the accused was pressing the breasts of her sister and then started dragging her in the bushes. She also stated that while leaving the place, the accused gave threats. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had observed that when the complainant PW-1 Bindi Devi was dragged or her breast was pressed, she must have suffered some injuries, but there was no medical evidence and that had weighed heavily in the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in setting aside the findings of the learned trial Court. From a perusal of the statement of the complainant, it is clear that she stated that the accused caught hold of her from her breast and dragged her and she fell down and then she raised an alarm. This clearly shows that she raised an alarm after she had fallen in the bushes and only thereafter her sister had come to the spot. Therefore, the statement of PW-2 Sevti Devi, sister of the complainant, that the accused was pressing the breast of the complainant, when she reached at the spot, does not inspire confidence. As per the complainant, she raised an alarm after - 4 - she had fallen in the bushes and not when the accused was pressing her breast. The complainant as PW-1 has stated that the accused touched her breast and caught hold of her from her breast, while PW-2 Sevti Devi has stated that breasts were pressed by the accused at the relevant time. Therefore, the possibility that PW-2 Sevti Devi has seen the accused pressing the breasts of the complainant appears to be remote. She has also stated that she was dragged to the bushes and her shirt, salwar and Dhatu were torn at that time. In case she had been dragged to the bushes, she must have suffered minor abrasions at that time and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had felt the necessity of corroboration from the medical evidence, which is not there and neither the complainant got herself medically examined nor the doctor was examined since the complainant never went to a Medical Officer nor the police got her medically examined. 8. Apart from the above, it has also come up in the statement of the husband of the complainant, namely, Rajinder Singh, who appeared in the witness box as PW-3 that he had lodged a complaint against the accused and 7 other persons before the SDM, which proves that there was some enmity in between the complainant party and the accused. The accused is the immediate neighbour of the complainant, as has come up in the testimony of the complainant and, therefore, possibility that he may have attempted this indecent act in the morning hours also appears to be remote. The complainant as PW-1 and the sister of the complainant Sevti Devi as PW-2 denied their knowledge in case a complaint was filed by their common husband PW-3 Rajinder Singh against the accused and - 5 - denial of this fact by them also makes their version doubtful, since the complaint had been lodged by their husband and they must be aware of the said complaint lodged against the accused, who happens to be their neighbour. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show from the statement of the complainant as to how the Salwar of the complainant was torn at the time when there is nothing on the record that the accused tried to open the string of the same and dragged her and these cloths were torn at that relevant time. In case cloths were torn, there must have been abrasions on the person of the complainant and, thus, there is also necessity of corroboration from medical evidence, which was not there. 9. The reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse in view of the statement of the complainant and her sister, which cannot be said to be such on which implicit reliance can be placed without any corroboration or corroboration from medical evidence, in view of the proved enmity in between the parties. 10. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the final conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. Oct.5, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge