IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 167 of 2002. Date of Decision: 15.12.2008 ________________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant Versus Madan Lal … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant (s) : Shri R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent(s) : Shri Vikrant Thakur, Advocate vice Shri K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hamirpur passed in Police Challan No. 104-II of 1997 decided on 11.7.2001, whereby she has acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 504, 323, 354 and 506 IPC. At the out set, the undisputed relationships between the parties may be set out. Complainant Tara Devi was married to Tulsi Ram, who died later-on. Tulsi Ram was married earlier also. Out of the earlier wedlock of Tulsi Ram, he had three daughters. Out of his second wedlock with Tara Dvi, he had three daughters and one son. One of - 2 - the daughters from the previous marriage of Tulsi Ram, i.e. Bimla Devi is married to the accused Madan Lal. Therefore, the accused is the step son-in-law of the complainant Tara Devi. The complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 20.5.1997, that on 19/20.5.1997 accused Madan Lal and one Suresh Kumar came near the house of the complainant in a drunken condition. They were standing around the house of the complainant and were using filthy language. They asked her to open the door and threatened to teach her a lesson. She locked the door from inside. At about 4.30 in the morning, the complainant Tara Devi went to the hand-pump to fill water. At that time accused Madan Lal caught hold of her from the shoulder and tore her clothes. Suresh Kumar caught her from her throat and touched her private parts. She managed to escape from the clutches of both the persons and went inside her house and locked the door. Then both these persons kicked and broke open the door. They went inside the house and broke a number of household articles and beat her children. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was lodged against the accused. During the course of the investigation, the police found that in fact Suresh Kumar was not present at the place of occurrence and he was on duty on the day when the incident took place and therefore, he was not arrayed as an accused. A challan was filed against the accused Madan Lal only. While appearing in Court, the complainant gave a totally different version. In Court, she stated that it was the accused Madan Lal who caught hold of her and tore her clothes. - 3 - She makes no mention of Suresh Kumar in her statement in Court. The version given by her in Court is totally different from the version given by her to the police. This fact was noticed by the trial Court while recording evidence. The complainant in fact was declared hostile and then cross-examined where she had admitted that she had filed the complaint against the accused. PW2 Sunita Devi is the daughter of the complainant. She supported the version of her mother. Interestingly, she deposed that at about 4.30 a.m. on 19.5.1997 she also accompanied her mother to fill water from the hand-pump. The mother had not stated that her daughter Sunita was present at the hand-pump. This witness also makes no mention of Suresh Kumar being present there. Both these witnesses do not make any mention of any other person being present at the spot on 19.5.1997 at 4.30 in the morning. The only so-called independent witness is Vikram Singh PW5. Though he supported the prosecution but there are inherent contradictions in his statement. According to him, Suresh Kumar was also present at the spot which is belied by the statement of the police officials especially PW8 as well as statements of PW 1 & 2 who have not made any mention of Suresh Kumar being present at the spot. Similarly, PWs 1 & 2 have not made any mention of PW5. It is apparent that PW5 was not present at the spot and no reliance can be placed on his statement. PW9 Joginder Kumar is the young son of the complainant. According to him, he was told by his sister that his mother had been beaten and her clothes were torn by the accused. He further - 4 - deposed that thereafter the accused went inside the house and broke the household articles and also slapped him. In addition to the contradictions between the statements of PW 1 & PW2, there is another aspect of the matter. None of the household articles which allegedly broken were taken into possession by the police. If any household article would have broken, the police definitely have taken the same into possession. In this case, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the relationships between the parties is inimical. Admittedly, the property of deceased Tulsi Ram has been inherited by PW9 Joginder Kumar only to the exclusion of his step sisters. There is some litigation pending in Court between the parties with regard to this property. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the sole testimony of the complainant and her daughter especially when there is a contradiction between these two statements also. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate in acquitting the accused. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused, shall stand discharged. December 15, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.