IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9th August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Roop Singh ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Ruma Kaushik and Mr. R.K. Thakur, Addl. Advocate Generals. For the Respondent: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The respondent is charged for offences under Sections 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he assaulted PW3 prosecutrix on 25.7.2005. In her testimony, she has stated that on 25.7.2005, around 1 P.M., while she was going to the jungle for grazing her cows, when she reached near the house of Uttam Verma, the respondent came there and caught her from her breasts and started outraging her modesty. He tried to lay her down on the ground. Her clothes were torn in this struggle. When she cried loudly, Asha and three 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 other girls came and rescued her from the clutches of the respondent and the respondent fled away from the spot. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix came to her house, the respondent threatened to kill her and her children by throwing petrol and setting her house on fire. 2. Two other witnesses namely PW1 Asha Devi and PW2 Sunita were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses, to establish the occurrence of the incident. They have not supported the case of prosecution and have not recognized the assailant as alleged. Neither they have been declared hostile nor has anything been brought on record to show/establish that these witnesses have been won over by the respondent/accused. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that testimony of prosecutrix itself is sufficient to establish the incident/occurrence and her statement cannot be disbelieved. 4. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason that her evidence is contradictory to and not corroborated by the statements of PW1 Asha Devi and PW2 Sunita, eye witnesses, who were allegedly present on the spot when the entire incident took place. The evidence of these witnesses has not proved the case of prosecution. In revisional jurisdiction I do not intend to interfere with the impugned judgment as I do not find any perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. August 9th, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge