State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kulla Ram

Sandeep Sharma, J

In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 15.3.2007, at about 9:00pm, when complainant, her father in law, mother in law and son Abhimanyu,

after taking dinner, were also sleeping in separate rooms of their house, somebody knocked the door of the room of the complainant continuously by

entering into her court yard. Complainant repeatedly asked that who is knocking the door, but since she received no reply, she opened the room,

whereafter accused all of a sudden entered into her room and caught hold of her (chhaati se chipak gaya) with an intention to outrage her modesty.

Complainant managed to push the accused and thereafter, picked up a danda and gave three blows of the same to the accused, whereafter accused

started calling the complainant as Bhabhi. Complainant identified the accused with the help of a torch and came out of the room. In the meantime, her

father in law, mother in law and her son also came to the spot. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR Ext.PW1/A came to be lodged against

the respondent-accused. Police after completion of investigation presented challan in the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-

facie case exists against the respondent-accused, charged him for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC, to

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offences

punishable under aforesaid provisions of law and accordingly, acquitted him vide judgment dated 23.1.2009. In the aforesaid backdrop, appellant-State

has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondent-accused after setting aside the judgment of

acquittal recorded by the court below.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned

judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below because bare perusal of the same, nowhere compels this Court to agree with contention of Mr.

Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General that court below while ascertaining the guilt of the accused, has failed to appreciate the evidence in

its right perspective, rather this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on

the date of alleged incident, accused had entered the room of the complainant and thereafter, made an attempt to outrage her modesty. Interestingly,

in the case at hand, prosecution despite there being availability of independent witnesses in abundance failed to associate the same and as such,

learned court below rightly put not much reliance upon the statements of material prosecution witnesses, who are closely related to each other.

PW1 (complainant) deposed that on 15.3.2007 at about 9:00 pm, while she, her in-laws and her son were sleeping in their separate rooms after

having taken their dinner, somebody knocked the door of her room. She deposed that she asked about the credentials of the person, who was knocking

the door, but when she received no reply, she opened the door and accused entered her room and caught hold of her (Chhati se chipak gaya) with an

intention to outrage her modesty. She further deposed that she had pulled the accused to one side and picked up a danda and gave blows to him. She

further deposed that though she came out from her room, but kept the accused inside the room by locking the same.

If the story putforth by the complainant (PW1) is examined juxtaposing her initial statement given to police, on the basis of which, formal FIR came

to be lodged against the accused, this Court finds considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the accused that there are material

contradictions and inconsistencies making story of the prosecution unbelievable.

PW2 Gian Chand, who happens to be father in law of the complainant (PW1), though supported version put forth by the prosecution but if cross-

examination conducted on this witness is perused, it certainly suggests that there was an old enmity between his family and family of the accused. It

has specifically come in the cross-examinations of PW1 and PW2 that in past, they had registered cases against the accused, in which he was

honorably acquitted.

PW3 Beli Ram, uncle of the complainant and PW4 Kanwar Singh brother in law of the complainant associated by the prosecution as independent

witness nowhere supported the case of the prosecution These witnesses stated that they do not know whether on date of occurrence, accused

entered in the room of the complainant or not. PW3 in whose presence, torn shirt Ext.P-2 and Salwar Ext.P-3, were taken into possession denied the

case of the prosecution in toto. Though these prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, but even cross-examination conducted upon these

witnesses nowhere suggests that prosecution was able to extract something advantageous for its case, rather version put forth by these witnesses

creates serious doubt with regard to the correctness of the story put forth by the complainant, who in her initial statement recorded under Section 154

Cr.PC and in subsequent deposition made before the court below stated that at the time of the alleged incident, her father in law, mother in law and

her son were present. Interestingly, neither mother-in-law nor son ever came to be associated as eye witnesses. Leaving everything aside, it has

specifically come in the statements made by material prosecution witnesses that there are number of houses abutting to the house of the complainant,

but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, none from the adjoining houses, came to be associated as an independent witness.

PW6 Balbir Singh I.O, admitted in his cross-examination that had any occurrence took place in the house of the complainant, definitely noise must

have been heard in the other houses adjoining to the house of the complainant. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC while

denying the case of the prosecution in toto has categorically stated that husband of the complainant namely Vidya Sagar, being a police official keeps

on implicating his family by registering false cases. It has specifically come in the evidence that husband of the complainant Vidya Sagar is a police

official and as such, in the given facts and circumstances of the case where enmity inter-se accused and the complainant stands duly established,

possibility of falsely implicating the accused, cannot be ruled out. True it is that version put forth by the interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside

outrightly, but same time, it is also well settled that version put forth by such witnesses is required to be taken into consideration with utmost caution,

especially, when there is no independent witness associated by the prosecution to corroborate their version.

Interestingly, in the case at hand so called interested witnesses have nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, rather cross-examination

conducted upon these witnesses creates serious doubt with regard to the correctness on story put forth by the prosecution, especially when the

independent witnesses in their cross-examination have denied suggestion put to them with regard to presence of accused in the room of the

complainant.

Having carefully perused the evidence available on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the

respondent-accused that since there are material contradictions in the statements made by prosecution witnesses, learned court below rightly did not

place reliance upon same. Reliance is placed on Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka

(2010) 5 SCC 645, wherein it has been held as under:-

“45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to

emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj

Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14)

The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is

held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.

In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental

aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that ""no man is guilty until proven so"", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised

in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court. There must be a

string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses.â€​

Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court sees no

reason to differ with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned court below which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation

of evidence adduced on record and the same is accordingly upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.