State of Himachal Pradesh vs Titu Ram

Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 23.8.1999, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 30.8.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 66/2 of 1999 titled as State of H.P. v. Titu Ram, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence.

It is the case of the prosecution that Smt. Sawitri Devi (PW-1) was residing in a ''dhara'' alongwith her small children near Brockhust, Chhota Shimla. She had purchased ghasni land from the HP PWD department for growing grass as she was in the business of dairy farming. On 23.8.1999 at about 10.30 a.m. when she was cutting grass from the said land when accused Titu Ram, who was working as a servant in the house of Mr. Kalra, started uttering filthy language. He tried to take away the cut grass which was objected to by her. At that accused caught her from her arm and slapped her 2-3 times on her face. He also started outraging her modesty and snatched the golden ear ring worn by her. She raised hue and cry. Sh. Geeta Ram (PW-3), Kirpa Ram (PW-2) and Thanku Ram arrived at the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Accused left the spot but threatened the complainant that he would do away her life in future. The matter was reported to the police and statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of PW-1 was recorded on the basis of which FIR dated 23.8.1999 (Ext.PW-4/B) was registered in Police Station, Chhota Shimla, under Sections 354, 356 and 506, IPC. The police investigated the matter and the complainant was got medically examined and her medical report (Ext.PW-5/A) is on recorded.

With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 506, IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the case against the accused, prosecution examined five witnesses. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence the present appeal.

Dr. Ganga Rawat (PW-5) has undoubtedly proved the fact that complainant (PW-1) was got medically examined. The medical evidence proves that some minute multiple contusion over supra sternal notch red in colour was on the body of the complainant. She, however, admits that the injuries could be caused in a scuffle or could be caused by a brush with a bush.

Now Gita Ram (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case. In spite of his having been cross-examined at length nothing has come on record to prove the guilt of the accused.

Kirpa Ram (PW-2) is the other witness whose testimony has been relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. The presence of this witness at the site appears to be doubtful. He admits that his house is at a distance of 100-150 meters from the spot in question. He had no reason or basis to be present at the time when the alleged incident took place.

PW-1 no doubt has narrated her version made in her complaint, but, however, in her cross-examination she admits that a quarrel pertaining to the grass on the land in question had taken place 2-3 times earlier also. There appears to be some dispute with regard to the ownership and identification of the land. Nothing has been proved on record to show that the land in question was actually allotted or purchased by the complainant. If some incident had taken place 2-3 times earlier also then why the matter was not reported to the police or the other authorities concerned has not been explained by the complainant. In this background her version that the accused had outraged her modesty does not inspire confidence on this count. No credible and reliable evidence is on record.

Further there are contradictions in the version of PW-2 and PW-1. According to PW-2 his statement was recorded on the spot whereas according to PW-1 the statements were recorded by the police in the Police Station.

It has come on record that both the complainant and the accused are milk vendors. It has also come on record that there is a dispute pertaining to the rights over the grass between the parties. In my considered view, the sole testimony of PW-1 does not inspire confidence. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution.

The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed.