Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1359 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. VIKAS SHUKLA

2009-12-29

SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)- The State has assailed the acquittal of the respondent, for the offences, punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. In the month of June, 1999, complainant Ms. Archana Shukla (PW4) was Guest Faculty Lecturer in University, College of Business Studies, Chaura Maidan, Shimla. On 16th June, 1999, she was on her way to Summer-Hill alongwith her friend PW1 Rakhi Thakur. When they reached near Summer-Hill Chowk, a Mahindera Jeep bearing registration No.CH-1-0760, came from Boileauganj side. It was stopped nearer to them. There were 7-8 persons including the respondent, a student of law in the University sitting therein. It is alleged that the respondent alongwith one Sikh gentleman peeped out side from the window panes of the Jeep and started passing unwarranted remarks. Thereafter, the said vehicle was driven off towards Summer-Hill side. When the complainant and her friend reached Summer-Hill chowk, they found the respondent standing alongwith his 4-5 friends. When they asked the respondent as to why he had passed the filthy remarks, he replied that he had done whatever he wanted and they might do anything to which they want. The respondent and his friends misbehaved with them and also threatened to do away with their lives. Since they apprehended danger to their lives, thus, reported the matter to the police. FIR Ex.PW2/A was recorded by PW2 HC Parmod Singh on the version given by PW4 Archana Shukla. The investigation was carried out by PW3 ASI Piar Chand, the Incharge of Police Post, Summer-Hill. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW3/A. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondent. 4. Notice of accusation for the aforesaid offences was put to the respondent, to which he denied and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the complainant Archana Shukla (PW4) and PW1 Rakhi Thakur besides examining the Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor. 6. 5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the complainant Archana Shukla (PW4) and PW1 Rakhi Thakur besides examining the Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was denial simplicitor. 6. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted on the grounds that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and also that the actual words which are alleged to have been spoken by the respondent were neither stated by the complainant nor her witness and there was no other independent witness to substantiate their version to conclude that the respondent had uttered any obscene words to the complainant and insulted her often and that the respondent committed an offence of criminal intimidation, as alleged. 7. In order to prove the offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove two particulars, namely: (i) the offender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public place; and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others. 8. If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered in or near any public place or that it causes no annoyance to others, the accused is stated to have committed no offence. 9. PW1 Rakhi Thakur, although stated that a Jeep aforesaid halted near them at Boileauganj chowk, but she did not testify as to what were the words used by the respondent at that time, so as to bring it within the purview of the aforesaid provisions. Similarly, her friend PW4 Archana Shukla (complainant) did not specifically state about it. She only stated that the respondent, who was known to her was talking irrelevant and further told her that she was looking bright and should get into the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle sped towards Summer-Hill side. Again, when they met them at Summer-Hill chowk, the respondent was sitting with his friend on the stair-case and they asked him as to why he had passed such type of comments, then he got enraged and stated that he had done whatever he could and threatened with dire consequences and also used abusive language. Thus, the FIR was lodged. 10. Thus, the FIR was lodged. 10. It is in evidence that the complainant PW4 Archana Shukla made a report in Police Post, Summer-Hill, but there is FIR, which was lodged in the Police Station, Boileauganj. No document showing that the complaint was lodged in Police Post Summer-Hill. There is also no independent witness to corroborate the above version of the complainant and her friends and particularly, in absence of the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent cannot be held guilty for that offence. Further there are material contradictions in the statement of PW4 Archana Shukla. According to her about three boys alighted from the Jeep, out of them, one respondent Vikas Shukla was there, but this fact has not been substantiated by her friend PW1 Rakhi Thakur. PW1 Rakhi Thakur testified that the respondent told her to bite her cheeks, but again this version has not been substantiated by PW4 Archana Shukla nor it finds mentioned in the FIR. The offence of criminal intimidation has also not been proved, more particularly, when the main offence charged against the respondent is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. On the scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, I find that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the respondent, beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are reasonable and borne out from the evidence on record, which requires no interference in this appeal. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed. 12. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. 13. Send down the records. 14. The matter stands disposed of.