IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.714 of 2001 Date of decision: 17.10.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Milap Chand & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Ms. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath dated 29.6.2001, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.3.1998 at about 7.15 PM., the statement of complainant Smt. Pinki Devi was recorded by a police officer under Section 154 Cr. P.C. She alleged therein that on 24.3.1998 at about 7.00 P.M., she was collecting wood in the courtyard of her house when the accused persons came there. Milap Chand caught hold of her from her arm and started dragging her, while Surjeet Kumar stated that in case she raised an alarm, she will be killed and Jagdish Chand was holding her arm. She was dragged for a distance of 100 yards and Milap Chand caught hold of her breast with the other hand and Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. started pressing them. She tried to rescue herself and the accused Jagdish and Surjeet Kumar stated that if she raised an alarm she will be killed. She further stated that Milap Chand started using abusive words to her. She raised an alarm and on this Beena Devi, Surksha Devi and Simro Devi came to the spot and accused persons ran away from the spot. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal as detailed above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. To substantiate her case, the complainant has stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and she has stated about the occurrence as per the report lodged by her that Milap Chand dragged her, tried to catch hold of her breast and if she raised an alarm, she was given threatening by the accused persons. A perusal of her statement shows that in the report made to the police, she had mentioned that her breasts were pressed, while in her statement as PW-1 she stated that Milap Chand attempted to press her breasts. She further made an addition to her statement by stating that Milap Chand put his hand inside her shirt, tore the shirt and put his hand on the back side of her shirt which was torn at that time. She further came up with the plea that Milap Chand also stated that she should have sex with him which facts were never stated by the complainant in her report that accused had put her hand inside her shirt, torn the shirt and made her an offer to have sex with him. It looks surprising that at an open place accused Milap Chand would have made an offer to her to have sex with him when his brother accused-respondent No.2 and another accused person Surjeet Singh were with him. Keeping in view these facts that such allegations were made in her statement which was lodged after three days of the occurrence, clearly suggest that the complainant has tried to make the case more serious by making these allegations which do not finding mention in her report made to the police. Coming to the testimony of the two eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-3 Smt. Beena Devi has stated that she saw Pinki and her mother-in-law running in the back side of her house and was crying Mar Diya Mar Diya. She stated that she also went to the place where the accused persons had gone and Pinki told her that the accused persons had a quarrel with her and stated that she does not know as to what had been done by these three accused persons. She was declared hostile. Her statement clearly shows that she had come up with a different version that there was a quarrel between the complainant and the accused persons. She did not state that any attempt was made by the accused persons to outrage the modesty of the complainant or that any threat was given to her. She had come up with a different plea that she saw the complainant and her mother-in-law running near her house which was never the case of the prosecution. The other witness examined is PW-4 Simro Devi who has stated that house of complainant Pinki is at a distance of 2-3 houses from her house. She stated that Pinki’s mother-in-law suffered a fit and sat on the road side. She caught hold of Pinki from her arm and left her in their house. She was declared hostile and was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP for the State but nothing has come on record to show that she had deposed falsely. The third witness namely, Surksha Devi whose presence was also mentioned by the complainant in her report made to the police, was not examined by the prosecution. Coming to the question of delay in lodging the FIR which was also considered by the learned trial Court as a ground of not believing the prosecution story. The complainant is a Member of the Panchayat and therefore, cannot be said to be unaware of the fact that such reports are to be lodged immediately. In regard to the delay she has stated that she had told the police that her husband was away to Panchrukhi in connection with some work and she was waiting for her husband who returned in the evening on 26th March only. Coming to the testimony of her husband Ghanshyam who was examined as PW-5, he has stated that he came back on the evening of 26th March and was told about the facts by his wife and then on the next day they proceeded towards Police Station at about 10.30 AM on 27th March, 1998 when police officer met them and they lodged the report. However, in the report lodged with the police, the complainant has alleged that her husband was away since he was ill whereas in Court she has stated that he was away in connection with his work. It has come in the testimony of PW-4 Simro Devi one of the eye witnesses, that husband of Pinki Devi was also present when she left her mother-in-law in her house on suffering a fit. This clearly shows that the testimony of complainant PW-1 Pinki Devi that her husband Ghanshyam was not present in the house or had come back after three days of the occurrence does not inspire confidence, Moreover, if he had returned on the evening of 26th March but still the report was lodged on 27th March at 9.45 PM and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the report later in the evening when the distance between the Police Station and the house of the complainant has been mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-2/A as only 20 KMs. The statement of the complainant does not inspire confidence that her husband was not present and came back after three days. The complainant has made material improvements in her statement to make the case more serious but the same does not inspire confidence and has not been corroborated by either of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference from this Court and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. 17th October, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)