IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A No. 189/2003. Date of decision: 30 .4. 2010. State of H. P. …..Appellant Versus Shashi @ Papu ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) State felt aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned trial Court in case No. 112-1/1999 decided on 19.2.2003, hence the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, prosecution case against the respondent is that on 8.3.1999 at about 5.30 p.m., prosecutrix had gone to the fields with cow dung load and to cut the grass. Noticing her alone in the fields, respondent tried to molest her. He embraced her, tore her clothes and also gagged her mouth and dragged 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - her in the fields. Prosecutrix offered resistance and raised alarm. Mohinder Singh working nearby was attracted by the noise. On noticing him, respondent fled-away towards the nullah. Mother-in-law of the prosecutrix along with some other persons came to the spot. Simultaneously, her husband also reached there. Next morning around 9.30 a.m. a written complaint was made by Rajinder Kumar husband of the prosecutrix to the police, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW5/A was formally registered. 4. Prosecutrix was got medically examined by PW3 Dr. Sanjay Pathak in P.H.C. Sahari. He noticed multiple abrasions around the breast and linear abrasion on the back right side starting from lower back to right hand 4-5” in length at the time of her medical examination. She also complained back-ache more particularly in the chest area. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused within the duration of less than 12 hours. To this effect, he issued medico legal certificate Ext. PW3/A. 5. Police prepared the site plan, took into possession medico legal certificate of the prosecutrix and after recording statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, challan was presented against the respondent in the court for his trial. - 3 - 6. Respondent was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. He abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 7. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant upon him were also put to him. He alleged false implication and pleaded innocence. 8. The trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses shows that he along with the husband of prosecutrix used to work together and were members of a band party. There was old enmity between them on settling some account. The prosecutrix has also involved Tarsem Singh in a molestation case. 9. No evidence in defence was led. 10. At the end of the trial, learned trial court found certain material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and also noticed that the injuries in question sustained by the prosecutrix did not synchronize with the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, the case of the prosecution ended in acquittal. 11. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was got medically examined on the next day of the alleged - 4 - occurrence i.e. on 9.3.1999 at 12.30 p.m. although some abrasions were noticed on her person. The duration of these injuries were opined by the doctor less than 12 hours vide Ext. PW3/A and he so testified when examined in the court. Prosecution did not elicit further that the time of these injuries could be more than 12 hours. Prosecutrix is a married woman and after the incident, she remained in the company of her husband. Doctor opined that these injuries could also be self inflicted. Otherwise also, the said injuries were within the reach of the hand of the prosecutrix herself which are quite minor in nature. 12. Further, prosecutrix stated that when she was cutting grass in the fields, respondent appeared and he caught-hold of her from her breast and embraced her. Thereafter he gagged her mouth and dragged her in the fields wherein the wheat crop was cultivated. Her wearing apparels were also torn in this pursuit. She raised hue and cry. Mohinder Singh got attracted by her cries and after some time, her mother- in-law came there and then one Vyasa Devi, both not examined, also reached the spot. After about one and half an hour, her husband also came there. Thereafter she became unconscious. She was lifted from the spot to her residence and later was got medically examined. Prosecution did not examine Vyasa Devi and her - 5 - mother-in-law Rattani Devi though their statements were recorded by the police. In cross-examination, she stated that her husband had gone to attend the marriage but when examined as PW1 Rajinder Kumar husband of the prosecutrix stated that he was in the house and he also heard the cries of his wife. Immediately thereafter, he reached the spot and found Mohinder Singh there along with one or two persons and his mother was also there but the respondent was not there. He did not utter even a single word that she got fainted, as stated by her. Further that she remained on the spot for about one and half an hour, as per her deposition and that she was carried from the spot to her residence. In cross-examination, she admitted that he was a member of the band party along with respondent and both of them remained as such for about 12 years. Although, he denied that there was dispute over settling some accounts. He further stated that a case regarding molestation was also registered against one Tarsem Singh which ended in compromise. He further stated that many persons had reached the spot, including her mother and Sheela Devi, but as stated above, none of them have been examined in the Court. But Mohinder Singh (PW2) stated that no woman was present on the spot. He was also confronted with his earlier statement recorded by the police, under Section - 6 - 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby his presence on the spot was disputed as he stated that at the relevant time he was cutting grass in his fields, which fact did not find mention therein. 13. None of the witnesses stated that there was wheat crop in the fields, which got trampled due to alleged dragging. Although the Investigating Officer had visited the spot next day after registration of the case and prepared the site plan, but he was not examined in this case to prove this fact despite affording various opportunities to the prosecution; as such prosecution evidence was closed and the fact remained unsubstantiated. 14. In view of the above, there is material contraction in the statement of the prosecutrix. The other witnesses do not lend support to her version rather it contradicts materially. The medical evidence is also discrepant in so far as, the manner in which the alleged injuries were sustained by the prosecutrix. Therefore, the prosecution case lacks probity. As such view taken by the learned trial court for acquittal of the respondent is borne out from the record which requires no interference. The appeal therefore, lacks merit hence dismissed. April 30, 2010 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge