State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sudershan Kumar

Surinder Singh, J.—Acquittal of the Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, passed in Case No. 45-2 of 2003, on 23rd March, 2004, by the learned trial Court, has been challenged by the State in the present appeal.

The Respondent is admittedly a grand-son of the prosecutrix. Her husband was working in I.T.B.P. outside the State and she was living alongwith her two minor daughters in the house of her in-laws alongwith her mother-in-law. Her father-in-law used to reside in another village with his eldest son. On 8.4.2003, "Kirtan" was going on in the temple nearby where 30-40 persons had gathered. The prosecutrix was making her minor daughters asleep in her room. It is alleged that the Respondent entered into the room, switched-off the light and embraced her. On this, she raised hue and cry and resisted, resulting into the breaking of her bangles. On hearing the cries, her mother-in-law PW2 Chhaya Devi also came out. The Respondent made an escape and jumped on the lintel of the house of PW4 Inder Ram and fled away. Next day, the prosecutrix sent the message to her father-in-law and on 11.4.2003 the matter was reported to the police in terms of FIR Ext.PW1/A. Police visited the spot and the prosecutrix produced the broken bangles which were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B. Police also prepared the site plan Ext.PW5/A. She was also got medically examined and the doctor found an abrasion on left dorsum of hand above 1st metacarpal with scab non-tender in touching and the injury was found to be simple having been caused within four days. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the Challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the Respondent.

The Respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences aforesaid, hence the present appeal.

Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the case of the prosecution stands proved by the prosecutrix as well as by mother-in-law and PW3 Jogindra affords the corroboration to their version and the medical evidence proves the case.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and further submitted that the Respondent had complained to her father-in-law about offensive relationship between prosecutrix and one Parmod Kumar that was the reason to foist a false case upon the Respondent. It is further ventilated that the defense stands probablised and the case of the prosecution totally hinges upon the version given by the interested witnesses who belong to one family.

I have scanned and reappraised the evidence on record.

Admittedly, the husband of the prosecutrix is serving outside the State and on the relevant day she was in her house in the company of mother-in-law (PW2), who had gone to attend some religious ceremony which was going on in the temple nearby and she herself was making asleep her minor daughters, as testified by the prosecution witnesses. Although, the prosecutrix stated about the entry of the Respondent in her room and having switched-off the light and then molested her, but in view of the fact the Respondent is her grand-son in relation and the plea taken by the Respondent that he had made the complaint to the father-in-law of the prosecutrix about the relationship between her and one Parmod Kumar, which was the cause of making a false case against him, probablise the defense put to them.

The immediate neighbour of the prosecutrix is PW4 Inder Ram. According to him, when he heard some noise on his lintel he came out and saw that the prosecutrix had come out of the house and was weeping and only stated that the Respondent had entered in her room, but did not say as to why he had come. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the police u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it was written that the prosecutrix had told that the Respondent had entered the room to outrage her modesty to which he denied. He stated that he never made such statement to the police.

Further, PW2 Chhaya Devi is her mother-in-law. She stated to have heard the cries in the temple, when she came there, she saw that the prosecutrix was weeping on the lintel. In cross-examination, she stated that after the cries, "Kirtan", which was going on in the temple, came to halt and Ved Mani and Jogindra came to the spot. The prosecutrix did not say anything about raising cry. Ved Mani was not examined. Though, PW3 Jogindra was examined, but she did not corroborate her version.

On the critical analysis of the evidence aforesaid, of course, the Respondent could not prove the defense so raised, but it stands probalised. The material witness to corroborate the version is PW4 Inder Ram, resiled on the material particulars. The statement of Chhaya Devi is not inspiring confidence. The statement of the prosecutrix is suffering from infirmity. The injury on her hand is opined to be having caused within four days, but she did not make any mention of the injury by the Respondent in her statement and otherwise also this injury appears not to be relatable to the incident in question. Thus, the acquittal of the Respondent cannot be interfered with. The appeal is lacking merit and is dismissed.

The Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case.