State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Thakur Dass

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The instant appeal, stands, directed by the State, against, the pronouncement, made by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Dohar, District Mandi, H.P., upon, Police Challan No. 90-I/2006/30-II/2006, whereunder, the accused/respondent herein, hence, stood acquitted, for, a charge framed, under, Section 354, of, the IPC.

Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 21.12.2005, one Birsa Devi, wife of Shri Param Dev, resident of Dumas, PO Seghali, Tehsil Chachiot, came to police sation and reported that on 20.12.2005, she was present in her house alongwith the mother of her mother-in-law, and, her husband and her brother-in-law, had gone to hear results of the election of village Panchayat Pardhan to Baldhdi. She stated that her brother Lalit Kumar was present in the house. At about 6.00 p.m. she was washing utensils in the gallery of her house when all of a sudden Hira Lal son of Fate Ram along with one of his friends named Thakur Dass came to their house and Hira Lal, who is the friend of his brother, was called by Lalit Kumar, inside the room where they sat down and started talking, but Thakur Dass remained standing near the gallery and did not go inside the room and he started staring her. Thakur Dass stood near to her and thereafter caught hold of her and embraced her in his arms and tried to press her chest with his right hand and also tried to pen the thread of her salwar with his left hand. She objected and tried to save herself and slapped him with her right hand and shouted. On hearing her shouts, her brother Lalit Kumar and Hira Lal came out of the room and rescued her from the clutches of Thakur Dass.

On the afore versions of the prosecutrix, FIR was registered against the accused in the police station concerned. The police started investigations into the offences.

On conclusion of the investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.

The accused/respondent herein, stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his committing, an, offence, punishable, under, Sections 354 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, in, the case.

On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour, of, the accused/ respondent herein.

The appellant herein/State, stands aggrieved, by the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The Additional Advocate General, has, concertedly, and, vigorously contended, qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating, any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.

This Court with the able assistance, of, the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

Both, the prosecutrix, while stepping into the witness box, as PW-1, and, also her brother, Lalit Kumar, upon, stepping into the witness box, as PW-3, hence rendered testifications, with, the utmost inter se corroboration(s), vis-a-vis, the genesis of the prosecution case, (a) and, also when their respective testifications, are free from any taints, of, any gross embellishments, vis-a-vis, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, (b) thereupon, this Court, may, prima facie, be constrained, to, set aside the findings of acquittal, as, rendered, by the learned court below. Furthermore, also the mere interestedness of PW-1, and, PW-3, in the success of the persecution case, would, also hence both, become underwhelmed, and, undermined, rather by the stark factum qua, the, afore inferences rather rendering their respective testifications, to, acquire a hue of veracity, and, also being confidence inspiring.

Be that as it may, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the effect of both PW-1, and, PW-3, rendering testifications, with, the utmost intra se corroboration, is subsumed, and, rather their interestedness in the success, of, the prosecution case, belittles, the probative tenacity, of, their respective testifications, (i) given both being siblings, and, the afore inference, is, bolstered by the factum, qua PW-2 not holding any relation either with PW-1, and, nor with PW-3, and, thereupon, his being an uninterested, and, independent witness, vis-a-vis, the genesis of the prosecution case, (ii) and yet his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, and, thereupon, an inference being sparked, vis-a-vis, both PW-1, and, PW-3, rather rendering an invented, and, a concocted version, vis-a-vis, the charge, and, their respective testifications, becoming unworthy of credence. The afore inference, acquires added vigour, from, the trite factum of PW-4, disconcurring rather with the respective testifications,a s, rendered by PW-1, and, PW-3, inasmuch, as despite the latter, both deposing in unison, vis-a-vis, theirs alongwith PW- 4 sighting, the, accused while grasping the prosecutrix, hence, in the gallery, of, the house of the latter, (iii) and, also testifying qua thereat, through, their rescuatory strivings, the prosecutrix being freed, from, the clutches, of, the accused, rather PW- 4 deposing qua his not sighting, the accused, to occupy the gallery of the house, of, the prosecutrix.

Even though, the mere factum of PW-4, reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, may not thoroughly efface his deposition, unless echoings are borne, during the course, his being held to cross-examination, by the learned APP, upon, his being declared hostile, and, theirs hence articulating qua his acquiescing, to, the, substratum, vis-a-vis, genesis of the prosecution case. However, a thorough reading of the deposition of PW-4, upon, his being cross-examined, by the learned APP concerned, (a) unfolds qua his completely reneging, from, his previous statement recorded, in, writing, (b) and, his omitting to make any echoings rather supportive, vis-a-vis, the substratum, of, the prosecution case, (c) thereupon, the factum of his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, remains intact, and, carries the effect qua this Court, being constrained, to, conclude qua PW-1, and, PW-3, while both being siblings, rendering, hence, an interested, and, a concocted version qua the genesis of the prosecution case, and,thereupon, their version being neither inspiring, nor creditworthy.

For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record.

Consequently, there is no merit, in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith to the quarter concerned.