IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 500 of 2001. Reserved on: 9.7.2008. Decided on: 13.08.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh. … … Appellant. Versus Rajesh. … … Accused/Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Accused/Respondent: None. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The accused/respondent was prosecuted in criminal Case No.40/2 of 2000 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat on 4.5.2001. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 4.5.2001. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the learned trial Court necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that on 25.5.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. when the complainant Sushma Devi (PW-1) was returning home from her fields, she saw the accused standing on the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - road. When she was crossing from the side of the accused, he caught hold of her from both the arms and embarrassed her and forcibly tried to drag her towards the fields. She raised hue and cry and with great difficulty managed to rescue herself from the clutches of the accused. She narrated the incident to her husband when he came back in the evening from his duty. Her husband is employed in H.P. Public Works Department. Written complaint was given by her to the Incharge of Police Post, Chail on 26.5.2000. The F.I.R. was registered in Police Station, Kandaghat. Investigation was carried out and on completion of the investigation, the challan was put up. The prosecution has examined three witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused on 4.5.2001. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal, dated 4.5.2001. The learned Additional Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution had proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 4.5.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record carefully. Smt. Sushma Devi, complainant while appearing as PW-1 has deposed that on 25.5.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. when she was returning home from her fields, the accused accosted her on the way. He caught hold of her from the arm and embarrassed her and started pulling her towards the fields. She raised hue and cry, which attracted the attention of Sunita Devi (PW-2) who came on the spot. The accused ran away - 3 - after seeing her. She has admitted that the accused is her father-in-law. PW-2, Sunita Devi is her Devrani. The name of Smt. Sunita Devi was not mentioned in the complaint dated 26.5.2000. It is mentioned in the complaint that her bangles were broken; however, there is no mention of the same in her statement as PW-1. PW-1 had stated that she has narrated the entire incident to her husband Shri Hardev at 9.00 p.m. on 25.5.2000. Shri Hardev, the husband of the complainant was not examined by the prosecution. Smt. Sunita Devi, PW-2 had admitted that she was not on speaking terms with the accused. The incident is dated 25.5.2000. However, PW-3, the Investigating Officer has visited the spot only on 2.6.2000 and recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses. It has come in the statement of the Investigating Officer that there are many residential houses near the place of occurrence. No independent witness has been associated by the prosecution during the course of investigation. There are material contradictions in the complaint made by the complainant and her statement as PW-1. Shri Hardev, husband of the complainant was an important witness and was required to be examined by the prosecution. The incident had taken place on 25.5.2000; however, the spot was visited by the Investigating Officer, Biru Ahmad on 2.6.2000. The learned trial Court after correctly appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, has rightly acquitted the accused. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents-accused are discharged. August 13, 2008 (sck). (Rajiv Sharma), J.