IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.633 of 2001 Date of decision : March 10, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Dharam Dutt …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with M/s Ramesh Thakur and R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate Generals. For the Respondent : M/s O.P. Negi & Vijay Sharma, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, whereby respondent Dharam Dutt, who had been convicted by the trial Court of offences, punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence, under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.500/-, for offence, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted and the judgment of the trial Court set aside. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. PW-1, a married woman, was asleep in her house in a village in Sirmour Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… District, on the night intervening 6th and 7th May, 2002, when around 2 a.m., she heard a knock at her door and also someone asking her to open the door. Her husband being not at home at that night, she thought that it was he, who was knocking at the door and calling upon her to open the door. She opened the door. As soon as the door was opened, respondent Dharam Dutt caught hold of her by wrists and started molesting her. PW-1 raised alarm, hearing which her husband’s elder brother’s wife, who was asleep in the adjoining room, came out. She saw the respondent grappling with the prosecutrix. After some time, the respondent fled from the spot. 3. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day, when the husband of the prosecutrix arrived. Police investigated the matter and filed a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court. 4. Prosecution examined the prosecutrix and her sister-in-law (Jethani) to prove the charge. Trial Court believed their version and convicted the respondent. Learned Sessions Court, in appeal, has observed that there are contradictions in the testimony of the two witnesses and when the said contradictions are seen in the light of the fact that the family of the prosecutrix on one side and that of the respondent, on the other, have been having litigation, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been established, beyond reasonable doubt. …3… 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. It has been admitted by the prosecutrix herself that the parties have been having litigation since long. The contradictions noticed by the Sessions Court are that while the prosecutrix herself stated that the respondent had caught hold of her by her wrists and no other part and that while holding her by wrists the respondent stood in front of her, PW-2 sister- in-law of the prosecutrix stated that the respondent had caught hold of the prosecutrix from behind and pressed and groped her breasts. The aforesaid contradiction is not a minor one and when considered in the light of the fact that the parties are having old enmity, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. March 10, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J