IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 112 of 2008 Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: 28.2.2008. State of H.P. …..Petitioner- Appellant. Vs. Surjit Singh …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The State has filed this petition for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgement, dated 29.9.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan in Criminal Case No. 37/2 of 2006 acquitting the respondent in FIR No. 75/06, Police Station, Sadar Nahan, under Sections 354 and 323 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Smt. Sunita Devi on 17.4.2006 was all alone in her courtyard, her husband was on duty and the children had gone to school. Her mother-in-law had gone for grazing her cattle. At about 11.15 a.m. the respondent came in the courtyard of the complainant and caught hold her and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… started pressing her breasts with intent to outrage her modesty, complainant raised hue and cry and on this respondent gave fist blow on her mouth. On hearing the cries of the complainant, her mother- in-law PW 6 Mahanti Devi, Rajinder and Mohinder came on the spot and respondent after pushing the complainant managed to escape from the spot. The bangles worn by the complainant were broken and her shirt was also torn. The complainant told the incident to her husband and on this FIR Ex. PW 1/A came to be registered. After conclusion of the investigation, challan was put up against the respondent, under Sections 323, 354 IPC and accordingly notice of accusation was put to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The respondent was examined, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but he did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hence this petition seeking leave to file an appeal by the State. 3. Heard. PW 1 Smt. Sunita Devi has stated that on 17.4.2006, she was all alone in her courtyard, respondent suddenly came there at about 11.15 a.m. and started pressing her breasts. She raised hue and cry and on this her mother-in-law, Rajinder and Mohinder came at the spot. Thereafter respondent pushed her and ran away from the spot. She has stated that her bangles were broken and shirt was also torn by the respondent. FIR Ex. PW 1/A was lodged. She has stated that by mistake she got recorded the name of respondent Surinder Singh instead of Surjit. In her cross examination, she has admitted that her husband has filed a case against the brother, mother and father of the respondent but again …3… stated that said case has been filed against sister-in-law of the respondent and not against his mother. She has stated that path belongs to respondent and he objects the user of that path. 4. PW 2 Rajinder Singh has stated that he had seen the respondent running through the fields of Smt. Sunita who told that respondent had beaten her up, mother-in-law of the complainant was not present in the house. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Surinder Singh and Mohinder Singh witnesses were given up by the prosecution. 5. PW 3 Multan Singh has not supported the prosecution and was declared hostile. PW 4 Dr. Sahida Ali has issued MLC Ex. PW 4/A of PW 1 Smt. Sunita Devi. PW 5 Inspector Jai Devi has stated that on 17.4.2006, the mother-in-law of the complainant had gone to forest for grazing cattle. PW 6 Mahanti Devi mother-in-law of the complainant has stated that she heard the noise of her daughter- in-law, she retuned to her house but did not see anything and she does not know what has happened with her daughter-in-law. She was declared hostile and was cross examined. 6. PW 1 claims that Rajinder Singh, Mohinder Singh and her mother-in-law Mahanti Devi came on the spot on hearing her cries. Rajinder Singh was examined as PW 2 but he has not corroborated the version of PW 1. Mohinder Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. PW 6 Mohanti Devi has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has noticed that complainant and her husband had filed a case against the brother, mother and father of the respondent. The …4… statement of PW 1 has not been corroborated. The complainant and her family are not on good terms with the respondent and his family. It is not safe to rely on the testimony of uncorroborated testimony of PW 1. No case for grant of leave has been made out. Hence, petition for granting leave to file an appeal is rejected. February 28, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.