IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 191 of 2004 Decided on: 18.10.2010 Nirmala Devi. ..…Appellant Versus Raghubir Singh & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) On 21st December 2001, the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 354, 451 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the respondents before learned trial Magistrate. Vide its judgment dated 15th December 2003, the respondents were acquitted on the ground that the statement of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence, the prosecution evidence has been quite contradictory and further that the parties were locked in litigation prior to the alleged incident. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. It was alleged in the complaint that on 5th October, 2001, respondent No. 1 entered the house of the prosecutrix with intention to outrage her modesty and threatened her with dire consequences, followed by his wife Kaushalya Devi and son Satish Kumar (both respondents in the complaint). A complaint was also made to the SDM. It is alleged that he did not take any action thereupon. It was also alleged that on 19th December, 2001, the respondent Raghubir Singh along with other respondents entered her house under intoxication and outrage her modesty and administered threats. 4. The perusal of the complaint itself shows both the incidents i.e. pertaining to 5th October, 2001 and 19th December, 2001, the facts alleged are almost identical. 5. After recording the preliminary evidence, learned trial Court finding sufficient material to proceed against the respondents, summoned them as accused. As such, notice of accusation was put to each of them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To substantiate her version, the prosecutrix examined herself and also produced her husband Gopal Singh as a witness. 7. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the incident as alleged. They took up the defence that a complaint was filed against the complainant, prior to the alleged incident in the Welfare department and also that there was a land dispute. The complainant was having grudge against the respondents, thus they were falsely implicated in the instant case. 3 8. When examined in the court, the prosecutrix stated about the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 19th December, 2001 only. She was categorical in her statement that when her modesty was outraged by respondent No. 1, at that time his wife and son (respondents) both were also present there which is a material deviation from the complaint itself. PW-2 Gopal Singh, her husband was not an eye witness but the incident in question is alleged to have taken place in the presence of his son as deposed by him in the examination before the Court who had called him to come to the house. Pertinently, he was not examined. Contra, the respondents have produced the record of the complaint which was filed by the complainant and the enquiry having been conducted by the police on the complaint referred by the SDM. Police during enquiry did not find any substance in the complaint, as such, submitted its report and on examining the report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not find any substance therein, rather, vide order dated 4th December, 2001 dismissed her complaint on the ground that it lacks probity. 9. The learned trial court examined the aforesaid facts and evidence, which in my opinion was rightly disbelieved. The very version of the complainant as stated by her before the Court that the respondent No. 1 had tried to outrage her modesty in the presence of his wife and son is unbelievable. Therefore, the story put forth becomes un-natural and not confidence inspiring. 10. Further, the parties were already locked in litigation and they had some dispute with respect to the land. Against the 4 aforesaid background, un-natural and un-believable version put forth by the complainant, the case against the respondents cannot be said to have been made out for converting the acquittal into conviction. The respondents were rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court which requires no interference. As such, the appeal is without merit, hence, dismissed. 11. The respondents are hereby discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceeding of this case. (Surinder Singh), J. October 18, 2010 (vs)