IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 2003 Decided on : 10th November, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Shyam Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. B.R. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 9.8.2000 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chopal, whereby respondent, who was tired for offences, under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, on police report, has been acquitted. 2. Case was registered against the respondent at the instance of PW-1 Roshani Devi, who reported that on 15.10.1999 around 7.30 p.m., when she was present outside the tenanted premises of PW-2 Rita Sharma, respondent came with a bucket of water and started giving beatings to her and then slapped her on the face and caught hold of her by her breasts, with intent to outrage her modesty. It was also reported by her that she raised hue and cry, which attracted PW-2 Rita Sharma and PW-6 Sangeeta Devi and the two rescued her. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined Roshani Devi as PW-2 and the above named two rescuers, to prove its case. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent, holding that the case does not stand established. 4. PW-1 Roshani Devi, in her examination-in-chief, stated that she was given a slap and an attempt was also made by the respondent to catch hold of her by her breast. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was put to her by the defence counsel that the respondent had not caught hold of her by her breasts, which she denied, meaning thereby that he had caught hold of her by her breasts. However, her statement in the examination-in-chief is only to the effect that an attempt was made to touch her breast. Therefore, it cannot be said that in fact she was caught hold of by her breasts or her breasts were touched. PW-6 Sangeeta Devi did not say that the respondent had assaulted PW-1 Roshani Devi with intent to outrage her modesty. 5. PW-1 Roshani Devi stated, in her testimony, in the Court that on hearing her cries, one Sunita came to the spot and when she tried to rescue her, the respondent quarrelled with said Sunita also. No witness by the name of Sunita has been examined by the prosecution. It may be noticed that PW-2 Rita Sharma and PW-6 Sangeeta are real sisters and they are not on good terms with the respondent, per their own depositions. …3… 6. In view of the above stated position, this does not appear to be a case of assault with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, but a case of trivial quarrel between PW-1 Roshani Devi and the respondent. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed. November 10, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh), J