IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 177/2002. Decided on:19.5.2009. __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …..Appellant. Versus Ranjit Singh. …Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (Oral): The acquittal of the respondent has been assailed in this appeal for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. Precisely, the case of the prosecution has been that complainant-Naraini Devi, a widow was having no child and was residing at a lonely place in village Baloh, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. It is alleged that on 19.10.1999 during the night hours, the respondent had consumed liquor and committed lurking house trespass at about 11.45 p.m in the house of the complainant. On noticing him hiding in a corner of the ground floor, when asked to Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes . 2 leave, he hurled abuses to her. The respondent did not go out. Thus finding him drunk she immediately came out and bolted the door from outside. Thereafter she informed PW3 Sita Ram and PW4 Nirmal Singh her brother-in-law. The police was also informed telephonically by her at about 1.30 a.m. The police reached the spot, arrested the accused and got him medically examined by PW2 Dr.Surinder Singh. On her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. the F.I.R. was lodged. The police prepared the site plan and also recorded the statement of the witnesses and after obtaining the copy of the M.L.C., the challan was presented against the respondent under Sections 457 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Finding a prima facie case against the respondent, he was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He raised the defence that there is a common path in front of the house of the complainant. He had been taking his mule through that path to which the complainant raised objection. Further, PW3 Sita Ram is her god-brother and PW4 Nirmal Singh brother-in- law therefore in collusion with them he was falsely implicated in the case. No defence evidence was led by him. At the end of the trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground that the complainant made contradictory version, firstly to the police in the shape of the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter during the trial of the case. Both the statements were irreconcilable. Further there was no specific 3 evidence regarding the obscene acts alleged to have been done by the respondent and the respondent was able to porbablise the defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses. It is significant to note that in the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW1/A the complainant stated to the police that she noticed that somebody had entered in the ground floor of her house through the door to which she inadvertently left it open. When she came out of her room from the first storey to the ground floor, she found the respondent concealing himself in the corner of the left side room. When she asked the respondent to go out, he refused. When she examined herself in the Court she stated that the respondent had knocked at the door, she opened the door and it was only thereafter the respondent entered inside her house. She did not say that the respondent had already entered into her house as aforesaid. In Ext.PW1/A she did not at all say that the respondent had made forcibly entry into her room, as stated by her in the Court. Further, if the statement (Ext.PW1/A) of the complainant is examined more closely, she stated that she had bolted the door from the outside leaving the respondent inside. Thereafter informed PW3 Sita Ram and PW4 Nirmal Singh. But PW3 Sita Ram stated that when he reached the spot, he found that the door of the house of the complainant was open and respondent was inside it. PW4 Nirmal Singh also stated that when he reached the house of complainant, the accused was inside the house along with Sita Ram. If the respondent was present in the room and the door was open he had an opportunity to escape to which he did not do. Thus a suspicion arises on the very story propounded by the witnesses during the trial. 4 There is also a glaring contradiction in the statement of the complainant. She deposed before the Court that when she opened the door she saw the respondent with a nip of liquor in his hand which fact was not mentioned in her statement Ext.PW1/A made to the police for which she did not offer any explanation. . Admittedly, there is a common path in front of the house of the complainant and it is also admitted by the complainant PW1 Naraini Devi that she had been objecting the respondent taking his mule through the said path which fact has also been admitted by PW3 Sita Ram. The allegation of the accused that the complainant had been objecting to use the path by the mules of the respondent and that was the reason to implicate him in the false case stands probablised.. The fact when the respondent had an opportunity to run away from the spot but he did not run and the glaring contradictions emerging from the evidence on record and it cannot be believed that the accused kept on waiting till the arrival of PW3 Sita Ram and PW4 Nirmal Singh to get the wrath of this case upon him. Since the contradictions of aforesaid are, in my opinion, material in nature which renders the case of the prosecution doubtful to record the conviction of the respondent for the offences charged. Further the house of the complainant cannot be said to be a public place so as to attract the offence falling under Section 294 I.P.C. The allegation of lurking house trespass which is an essential ingredient to prove the case under Section 457 I.P.C. is also not made out from the evidence on record. 5 Therefore for the above reasons, findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with, which of course, are borne out from the evidence on record. As such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any point during the proceeding of the case. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 19,2009(R)