IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2000 Date of Decision: 25th February, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Rachhpaul Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.B.C.Negi, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Mr.B.C.Negi, Advocate, appears for the respondent and undertakes to file the power of attorney during the course of the day today. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 5th March, 1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 152-II/93, titled as State vs. Rachhpaul Singh, acquitting the accused of the charged offence. As per the case of the prosecution on 25.6.1993 at about 9.30 a.m. complainant Smt. Kanta Devi had visited Post Office Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Shamirpur, H.P. to collect a registered letter addressed to her. At the relevant time, the accused was posted as Post Master. Just as she was signing the acknowledgment receipt of the registered letter, the accused with an intention to outrage her modesty misbehaved with her and pressed her breast. The complainant asked the accused as to what was his problem, to which he asked her to sign acknowledgment slip. She signed the same and came out of the premises and started raising hue and cry. The matter was reported with the Panchayat on 25.6.1993 itself and in the absence of any action a formal FIR (Ext.PW-1/A) was lodged with Police Station Kangra, H.P. on 26.6.1993. The matter was investigated by the police and challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation under Section 251, Cr.P.C. was put to the accused for a commission of an offence under Section 354, IPC, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to support its case the prosecution in all examined four witnesses. It is pertinent to point out that in spite of various opportunities taken by the prosecution, all of the witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Considering the evidence of complainant Smt. Kanta Devi (PW-1), Shri Anup Kumar (PW-2), Sh. Ramesh Dhiman (PW-3) and Dilbag Singh, Dy. S.P. (retd.) (PW-4), the Court below acquitted the accused of the offence on the ground that the prosecution story did not inspire confidence and also the fact that one of the alleged spot witness Shri Sanjiv Kumar was not examined during trial. 3 The defence taken by the accused needs to be noted at this stage. In his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., it has been stated that PW-1 was having cordial relations with one Shri Ramesh, who was also cited as a witness but was not examined during trial and that he has been falsely implicated with a view to cause harassment as PW-2 had been litigating with him. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to PW-1, on 25.6.1993 at about 9.30 a.m. she visited the Post Office where the accused was posted, to collect the registered letter. While she was signing the acknowledgement slip, the accused pressed her breast. When she enquired from him as to what was the problem, the accused asked her to sign. She signed and thereafter left the premises of the Post Office when she raised hue and cry and ran away. According to her Charanjeet, Anup Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar came at the spot. The matter was reported with the Panchayat and since no action was taken a report was lodged with the police. This witness has been cross-examined extensively. She has been confronted with FIR (Ext.PW- 1A). Her statement shows that there has been major improvement in her testimony. From her statement and record it is clear that nothing has been proved to show that the alleged letter was either addressed to her was ever received by her. In fact the record does not even suggest that any registered letter was issued in the name of the complainant or that she was asked to collect the same from the Post Office. She is stated to have signed the acknowledgement receipt of the registered letter, but there is nothing on record to suggest the same. 4 As per her statement none was present at the time of incident and it was only after she had left the Post Office premises that she raised hue and cry when three witnesses came at the spot. Shri Charanjeet and Sanjiv Kumar have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known. Shri Anup Kumar, in my view, does not fully corroborate the statement of PW-1. In fact as has been rightly held by the trial Court, there are contradictions in the statement of said witnesses. Whereas PW-1 has stated that after signing the papers, she left the premises and only thereafter she raised hue and cry, on the other hand, according to PW-2 he saw the accused being chased by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused had left the Post Office premises and that she has chased him. Importantly, the complaint lodged with the Panchayat is not part of the record. The statement of PW-1 also does not inspire confidence for the reason that PW-2 has categorically stated that adjoining to the building, housing the post office there are other shops and the post office is normally opened in the morning in the presence of two employees Sher Singh and Joginder Singh. Further, the statement of PW-1 does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that she has herself admitted that even after the accused misbehaved with her she signed the acknowledgement slip and only thereafter she left the premises and raised hue and cry. It is surprising as to why no alarm was raised immediately at the time of occurrence of incident. The alleged incident has taken place in broad day light and in the market place. Another contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 which needs to be noted is that whereas PW-1 refers to presence of only Shri Charanjeet, 5 Shri Anup and Shri Sanjiv Sharma, PW-2 has also mentioned names of Shri Sultan, Shri Partap, Shri Mehar Singh, Shri Ranjit Singh in addition to aforesaid persons. He also mentions that in addition to aforesaid persons 20-25 persons also present at the spot. PW-2 has admitted the fact that about 6-7 years prior to the incident he has had quarrel with the accused. Evidence of PW-3 and PW-5 is not of much relevance to convict the accused of the charged offence as PW-3 is a spot witness and PW-4 is an official witness. Thus the accused cannot be stated to have committed the alleged offence. The testimony of the witnesses does not inspire confidence. The accused has had the advantage of being acquitted by the Court below. The material has been appreciated in its entirety and there is no perversity in the same. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal as the prosecution, in my view, has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. 25th February, 2008 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.