IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.214 of 2001 Reserved on 1.03.2008 Date of decision 17.03.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Nand Lal and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General With Mr.Anil Kumar Jaswal,Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, vice Mr.M.S.Chandel, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi in a Police Challan No.803-1/96/204-II/96 under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and were acquitted on 31.10.2000. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The brief facts as projected in the judgment of the trial court are that on 4.6.1996 at 11 p.m. prosecutrix Phula Devi (PW-1) was resting on the cot in her house alongwith her two children. The accused persons broke open the door of her house and attacked her. Her breast was pressed. She was given severe beatings. Her shirt and salwar were torn and was called a witch. She raised alarm and the accused persons ran away. She went to the house of Tephu Ram alias Dhani Ram son of Pholo Ram alongwith her children. When she reached in the compound of the house of Tephu Ram she was again beaten by the accused persons and 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No 2 she took shelter in the house of Tephu Ram during night. The matter was reported to the Panch and thereafter FIR was lodged. After completion of investigation accused persons were challaned. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused were acquitted by the trial court on 31.10.2000, hence this appeal against their acquittal. Mr.Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Anil Kumar, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. He then contended that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment of the trial court dated 31.10.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. PW-1 Phula Devi is the witness to the occurrence dated 4.6.1996. Tephu Ram son of Pholo Ram was another eye witness of the occurrence. He was neither cited as a witness in the list nor had he been examined on oath by the prosecution. His name figured in the FIR Ex. PA. Interestingly, Tephu Ram and Kishnu both sons of Pholo Ram were examined as defence witnesses. It is in this background that the statement of PW-1 is to be examined by the court. She has stated that the accused had entered the house and started abusing her. They inflicted teeth bite injuries on her entire body and tore her clothes and took away her golden ear and nose rings. According to her the accused wanted to indulge in sexual act with her. But she resisted in obliging them. Her shirt was put off and her breast was pressed. Blood started oozing out profusely from her breast and mouth. She was made to lay on the ground and Nand Lal sat on her. She managed to save herself and went to the house of Pholo Ram and raised alarm there. She was again given beatings by accused 3 Gian Chand. She thereafter went inside the house of Kishnu and was again beaten in the presence of Kishnu. In the morning she narrated the incident to the village Panch and thereafter FIR Ex. PA was registered. PW-2 is Tripta Devi. She has stated that the accused persons belong to her Panchayat and she has never heard anything adverse against the character of the accused and both boys belong to good family. She has also stated that PW-1 has not told her the reason why the accused have beaten her. PW-4 Tulsi Ram has admitted that relations between the parties are inimical. Statement of PW-1 regarding injuries received by her are also exaggerated vis-à-vis the MLC Ex.PW-5/A. Dhani Ram and Kishnu had been examined as defence witnesses. They have denied that any incident has taken place two years back. DW-1 has stated that he has not heard any noise on 4.6.1996. Similarly, DW-2 has stated that he had not witnessed any quarrel on 4.6.1996. PW-1 has stated that she was saved by Tephu Ram alias Dhani Ram when she was given beatings by accused persons. But this version of PW-1 has not been supported by Tephu Ram. In view of this the statement of sole witness PW-1 cannot be relied upon.7 The prosecution has failed to prove its case. Consequently, the judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. March 17,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.