1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 541 of 2000 Decided on September 27, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Jagan Nath Shukla ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, with Mr.Chaman Negi, Advocates. Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 1.7.2000, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2000 under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondent. 2. The prosecution case is that the victim / prosecutrix (name not given) a major married lady about 35 years of age, deployed in the office of Deputy Director (Education), Hamirpur, was sexually assaulted by the accused-respondent, 2 on 17.2.2000, however, the FIR was lodged by the delay of six days. However, on enquiry, the accused-respondent was charged for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case. 4. PW.6 Dr.Archana Soni examined the victim / prosecutrix wherein no mark of injury was found on the body of the victim / prosecutrix, though the victim / prosecutrix was found to be in habit of sexual intercourse. In cross- examination, PW.6 has stated that she did not notice any external injury on the person of the victim / prosecutrix . As per chemical examiner's report, no spermatozoa was detected, hence possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. 5. PW.1 the victim / prosecutrix disclosed the incident to Jitender Rana and Madam Vijay Patial, who asked her to give a complaint in writing with regard to the facts narrated by her to them. PW.1 the victim / prosecutrix wrote a complaint Ex.PW.1/A and went to the police station alongwith above said persons and reported the matter to the police. The police took the victim / prosecutrix to the hospital for her medical examination. In complaint Ex.PW.1/A the victim / prosecutrix had not disclosed about the commission of rape by the accused-respondent, instead stated that he had indulged in indecent behaviour with her. The testimony of PW.1 the 3 victim / prosecutrix is not inspiring confidence as she has given different version at different stages and the reasons best known to her, she has not reported the matter to the police well within time, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence also not supporting the prosecution case is making the prosecution case doubtful. 7. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and there is no scope of interference in the impugned judgment. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 8. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 27, 2010 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge