IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.399 of 2002 Date of decision : April 29, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Vipin Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment dated 27th February, 2002, of the trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Vipin Kumar, who was tried for an offence, punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s version may be summed up thus. On 7th March, 1999, at 12.40 p.m., a report was lodged with the Incharge of Police Post, Sandhol, that on the previous day, around 2-3 p.m., when PW-1 (the prosecutrix) was filling water in a metal pitcher (Bantu) from the Khati (a sort of well), the respondent appeared from behind, caught hold of her, loosened the string of her salwar, threw her on the ground and then lied on her. Police investigated the matter and challaned the respondent. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 (the prosecutrix), her mother PW-3 Indra Devi and her grandmother PW-2 Halki Devi to substantiate the accusation. Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution version and acquitted the respondent. So, this appeal by the State against the judgment of the trial Court. 4. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and gone through the record. 5. From a perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix, her mother and her grandmother, it appears that the prosecutrix has made substantial improvements over the earliest version, for the reasons best known to her. In the earliest version, the prosecutrix got recorded that the respondent had loosened the string of her salwar and threw her on the ground and lied on her. However, while in the Court, she stated that he had broken the string of her salwar and torn her clothes. Her mother and her grandmother have, however, stated that neither the clothes of the prosecutrix were torn nor had the string of her salwar been broken. 6. Site of occurrence testified by the prosecutrix is also different from the one disclosed by her in the earliest version. As per earliest version, the incident had taken place at the site of Khati itself, when she was filling up a metallic pitcher of water. However, while in the witness-box, she stated that she was waylaid in Rutta (grassy land), through which she was passing on way to Khati. …3… 7. It has come in evidence that a few days, prior to the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between the respondent and the family members of the prosecutrix, because of the pet of the respondent having been beaten up by the grandmother of the prosecutrix. Though, the grandmother of the prosecutrix, namely PW-2 Halki Devi, denied the suggestion to this effect, the prosecutrix herself and her mother PW-3 Indra Devi admitted the fact. In view of the abovestated position, I do not think this is a fit case where judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court should be interfered with. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 29, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J