IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.97 of 2008. Date of decision: 27.2.2008. State of H.P. …….Petitioner Vs. Dhanvir …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge.(Oral) The State has filed this application for seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan in Case No.23FTC/10 of 2007, acquitting the respondent under Sections 451, 354 and 323 IPC. 2. The respondent was prosecuted on the basis of Ex.PA FIR No.28 dated 14.3.2000, Police Station, Kasauli, for having committed offence under Sections 451, 354 and 323 IPC. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli convicted the respondent on 3.7.2007 and sentenced him on 18.7.2007, under Section 451 IPC with simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… Rs.1000/- , in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 354 IPC, he was sentenced with simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 323 IPC he was sentenced with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The respondent filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan as noticed above, hence State has filed this application for leave to file appeal 3. Heard. The prosecution has examined complainant Vidya Devi as PW-1. She has stated that she was alone at her home and going from kitchen to room, accused came to her house, caught hold and gagged her mouth and dragged her with an intention to outrage her modesty. In cross-examination she has admitted that there are two houses adjoining to her house. She has admitted the pendency of litigation between her and the accused. She has also stated that PW-2 Meena Devi came on the spot about 20 minutes after the occurrence. PW-2 Meena has given the time of occurrence at about 10 AM on 14.3.2000. She has stated that on seeing her the accused had left the spot and ran away. In cross-examination she has admitted that she was not on speaking terms with the accused. PW-3 Dr. Mohinder Lal who examined PW-1 Vidya Devi has stated …3… that he examined Vidya Devi on 14.3.2000 at 6.45 PM and injuries found on the person of injured were simple in nature. He has given the duration of injuries within 2 hours with blunt weapon. PW-2 Meena Devi is not an eye witness which is clear from the statement of PW-1 Vidya Devi. The complainant Vidya Devi as well as PW-2 Meena are not on good terms with the respondent who is having litigation with Vidya Devi and is not on speaking terms with Meena Devi as stated by her. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness from the vicinity, even though there are houses near the place of the alleged occurrence. No explanation has been given, why the witnesses from that area were not associated in the investigation. In addition to this as per prosecution the alleged occurrence had taken place at 10 AM on 14.3.2000 whereas PW-3 Dr. Mohinder Lal who examined Vidya Devi at about 6.45 PM has given the duration of injuries found on the person of Vidya Devi of 2 hours. In other words according to doctor the injuries on the person of Vidya Devi were inflicted between 4.45 PM to 6.45 PM on 14.3.2000. This is contradiction to the prosecution case, according to which the injuries were sustained by Vidya Devi at 10 AM on 14.3.2000. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and the conclusion drawn by him is possible and no case for leave to file appeal has been made out, hence leave to appeal rejected. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. February 27, 2008 (sks) …4…