State of Himachal Pradesh vs Malka @ Jai Ram

Surinder Singh, J.—The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by the learned trial Court in Cr.Case No. 13-II/ 2002 decided on 28th February, 2005.

Heard and gone through the record.

In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 18th October, 2001, the respondent is alleged to have restrained the prosecutrix/complainant and used criminal force to outrage her modesty. When she raised hue and cry, attracted by the commotion her brother-in-law PW2 Ghanshyam and his wife PW5 Dhani Devi came to the spot. In the meantime, the respondent made a clear pair of heels, while leaving, threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences.

The husband of the prosecutrix was not at home, therefore the FIR Ext.PW7/B was alleged to have been lodged after about three days when he returned with the assistance and accompanied by a retired SHO Jai Singh.

The police swung into motion, reached on the spot, prepared site plan of the alleged incident and also took into possession torn shirt of the prosecutrix vide memo Ext.PW1/A.

After completing the challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of trial, the accused was acquitted on the basis of contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses, delay in lodging the FIR and also on the ground that the accused was able to probablise his defence of strained relations.

On the scrutiny of the evidence, I find that the accused and the husband of the complainant named Narotam Ram both earlier were having cordial relations and had money transactions between them. It is alleged that later some money dispute arose between them with respect to non-refunding the money taken by the accused from the husband of the prosecutrix. It was on account of the alleged misunderstanding that the complainant and her husband lodged FIR against him.

To substantiate the case of the prosecutrix, the prosecution relied upon the statement of Ghanshyam and Dhani Devi who are none-else than the close relatives of the prosecutrix. The place of incident is proved to be a thickly populated area having many houses in the vicinity. According to the prosecutrix, she had raised hue and cry when she was manhandled and stated that villagers might have heard her cries, but none of the village folk came to rescue her except PWs 2 and 5 above.

Though the corroboration is not a rule in case the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, but in the instant case, the very material facts have come up in the statements of witnesses that on account of the money transaction inter se husband of the prosecutrix and the accused, some bad-blood was created, coupled with the fact that the FIR was lodged after three days, thus there are chances of deliberation and manipulation with the aid of a retired police officer who was accompanying them for lodging FIR. In absence of the cogent evidence for non-explaining of such delay in lodging the FIR and the names of Ghanshyam and Dhani Devi having not find mentioned in the FIR. The prosecution case lacks probity.

Further there have been contradictions in the statement of PW2 Ghanshyam as in examination-in-chief he stated that he had seen the accused putting his hand on the shoulder of the prosecutrix, but in cross-examination stated that he only saw the accused while running from the spot, whereas, PW5 Dhani Devi stated that the accused had caught hold of the prosecutrix from the shoulder. Both these witnesses are stated to have come together on the spot. It is in the sharp contradiction with the statement of PW2 Ghanshyam her husband. There is no other evidence to lend strength to the case of prosecution.

On the critical examination of the prosecution evidence in the above fact situation, the findings of acquittal as recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record and require no interference. Hence appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case.

Send down the records.