IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 2004 Reserved on: June 23, 2010 Date of Decision : July 21, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant v. Surender Singh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. For the respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence which is alleged to have been committed on 21.3.1999, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli at Solan, in Crl. Case No.104/2 of 1999, titled as State of H.P. vs. Surender Singh, the accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.3.1999 Smt. Manju (PW-1) was in her house at Bhuranwal. At about 12.00’O Clock in the night the accused trespassed into her house with an intention of assaulting her and using criminal force in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 order to outrage her modesty. The accused entered the house and assaulted the victim. On 12.4.1999 Smt. Manju filed a complaint and under Section 156 sub-Section 3 Cr.PC, the matter was forwarded to the police for investigation. With the completion of the same the challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 354 & 451 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. 3. The Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that the prosecution was not able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out. 5. Smt. Manju (PW-1) is the victim, Smt. Amro Devi (PW- 5) is the mother–in-law of PW-1, Smt. Lajo Devi (PW-6) is the daughter-in-law of PW-5. Sh. Ram Singh (PW-7) is the husband of PW-6. These are the material witnesses on whose testimony the prosecution case primarily rests. 6. The investigation was carried out by HC Gian Chand (PW-10) and Inspector Ashok Verma (PW-11). 7. The incident allegedly took place on 21.3.1999, yet the matter, as has been proved on record, was reported only on 12.4.1999. None of the prosecution witnesses have been able to 3 explain the cause of delay. The other prosecution witnesses, namely, S/Sh.Shyam Lal (PW-2), Tula Ram (PW-3) and Rajinder (PW-4) also do not support the prosecution and explain the cause of delay. 8. Sh. Jai Chand (PW-9) is the Pradhan of the area who simply states that he had advised the complainant to bring the matter to the notice of the authorities. Now this witness also admits that there are houses of other persons in close proximity and the prosecution has not examined any such person from the neighbourhood. The Investigating Agency for the reasons best know to them have associated only two close relatives of the complainant who undoubtedly are interested witnesses being the family members. 9. The version given by PW-1, PW-5, PW-6 & PW-7 about the manner and the time of the alleged occurrence of the incident is at variance. There are contradictions which when considered in totality acquire dimensions rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful. The complainant is not sure about the time when the accused is alleged to have committed the crime. Why did she not raise any hue and cry so as to attract the attention of the neighbours or other members of the family has not been explained. Her statement does not inspire confidence. These witnesses admit that previous litigation is going on between the parties. Thus the defence of the accused that the relation between the parties is inimical is probable. It 4 has also come in the evidence that PW-1 is not residing in the house of her husband Sh. Jinder Pal (PW-8) as he is not interested to keep her. S/Sh. Prem Chand and Raj Kumar who are neighbours have not been associated by the prosecution. 10. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. July 21, 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.