IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No.226 of 2003. Date of decision : 20.04.2010. Champa Devi …..Petitioner Versus Tek Dass & Others …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No.1&2: M/s.Paresh Sharma and Shivank Panta, Advocates. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-(II), Shimla, dismissing the prosecution case filed against the respondents- accused for offences under Sections 451, 354, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief was that on 13.5.2001 at about 9.00 P.M. in village Shanha, the accused purportedly made unlawful entry into the house of the complainant Champa Devi, criminally assaulted her beating her with dandas when they found her alone in the courtyard of the house. The allegation is that 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 they outraged her modesty by indulging in indecent activities. She raised an alarm and was rescued by her mother Smt.Sumna Devi, her sister-in-law Smt.Seema Devi and her brother Shri Nokh Ram. On seeing these persons, the accused-respondents fled away from the spot. The matter was accordingly reported to the Police at Dhali and First Information Report No.110 of 2001 was registered in the Police Station at Dhali. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Considering the entirety of the evidence on record the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused holding that no offence was established. On the question of outraging the modesty of the petitioner, the learned Court holds that the Court considered the statements of complainant Champa Devi PW-4, Sumna Devi PW-5, Seema Devi PW-6 and Nokh Ram PW-7. The Court holds that although the other three witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 witnessed the incident, but they have not said a word about the modesty of the complainant being outraged or any offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code having been made out. The complainant states that the entire incident of beating and quarreling etc. continued for 10 to 15 minutes. Another aspect which is to be taken notes of is that PW-6 Seema Devi, who is the sister-in- law of the complainant, states in her evidence that the complainant had gone down with a dog to tie it in the 3 courtyard of the house. If that be so, it is not comprehended that as to how the accused could enter the courtyard especially when there was a dog in the house of the complainant. In the natural course the dog would have attacked the accused. On the other aspect of the matter, the medical certificate Ex.PW-9/A points out to some simple injuries having been sustained by the complainant but there is no evidence to connect those injuries having been inflicted by the accused- respondents. The learned Court holds that the witnesses are related to each other and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. This cannot be accepted to be true as a general proposition of law. However, on scrutiny and reading of the evidence and more especially the fact that the complainant was accompanied by a dog which was kept in the house, it is not clear as to how the assault took place. The complainant says in her statement that this incident kept on happening for 10 to 15 minutes, but at the same time it must not be lost sight of the fact that the learned Court holds as a fact that her house is situated in a populated area with houses of other persons adjoining this house, no person from these houses came out except one PW-11, Shri Bhoop Ram, who is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, who states that, “Doshi hamare ghar aya jo sharab piye tha. Maine use bhej diya. Devi Ram ki aurat, bahu va ladki ne doshi ko pakad liya. Halla hone par maine unhein mana kiya 4 aur doshi ko unse chhuda diya.” He only points out to one person and not two. He also states that no quarrel took place in his presence. The Court after a thorough appraisal of the evidence has dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the learned Court was not correct in not accepting the testimony of the complainant who was categoric in her statement that she was the victim of the indecent assault. This evidence cannot be accepted for the reason that the complainant had a dog with her, other witnesses have not supported her case at all which includes her mother, sister-in-law and brother. Nobody from the nebhiouring houses came to the scene of occurrence. In these circumstances, I do not find that the learned Court below has committed any illegality in acquitting the accused. There is, thus, no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents-accused stand discharged. April 20, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.