Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 146 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. CHAMAN LAL SHARMA

2009-03-13

SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.:- In this criminal revision petition, the State has assailed the concurrent findings of fact with respect to the acquittal of the respondent in a case under Sections 332, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that the complainant-prosecutrix was TGT (Arts) teacher in Government High School, Beetan, where the respondent was also posted as Science teacher. On 14.10.2005, while the prosecutrix was sitting in the Staff Room with one Kiran, respondent is alleged to have sent a slip through a peon for deleting the name of a student from the admission and withdrawal Register, which was in the custody of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix asked the peon to send the respondent. The respondent is alleged to have entered in the Staff Room at 1.15 p.m. and the respondent asked the reasons. After the exchange of hot words, an altercation took place between the prosecutrix and the respondent. The prosecution has alleged that respondent had tried to outrage her modesty and also threatened her with dire consequence. Smt. Kiran, who was with the prosecutrix, went to call the Head Master and the respondent is alleged to have fondled with her breast. In the meantime, Head Master and the P.T.I. came to the Staff Room and she was saved from his clutches. The matter was reported to the Police and the FIR was lodged on the complaint of the prosecutrix. 4. On the above allegations the respondent faced trial but acquitted. 5. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed. 6. It is contended in the present revision petition that the learned courts below did not appreciate the evidence in the right perspective. 7. I have heard Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. It is contended in the present revision petition that the learned courts below did not appreciate the evidence in the right perspective. 7. I have heard Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and have carefully gone through the record of the case. Initially, in the report to the police by the prosecutrix, she alleged that altercation had taken place when she told the peon to send for the respondent to her for deleting the name of the student as per procedure and it was then the respondent came and started abusing her and threatened her to slap, on which she told that he should show how he could slap and it was thereafter the respondent gave slap at her face and caught hold of her hair on the head and thereafter pushed her aside and the incident was witnessesed by Kiran, Head Master Achhar Singh , Peon Amarjeet Kaur, and Devinder Singh P.T.I. who also arrived there; but there was no allegation with respect to outraging her modesty. In her statement before the court, she improved her version a lot. She stated that when Kiran had gone to call the Head Master, respondent started fondling with her breast but this version was not disclosed by her at the time of lodging FIR and no cogent reason has been assigned for that. PW-2 Kiran did not support her version rather she stated that respondent asked the prosecutrix that whether he was senior or the prosecutrix was senior and both started exchanging hot words. On which respondent asked the prosecutrix that he would slap her but in the meantime, Smt. Kiran ran away to call the Head Master. Devinder Singh P.T.I. was not examined by the prosecution to substantiate the version of the complainant. PW-3 Achhar Singh Head Master stated that PW-2 Kiran had informed about the dispute between the respondent and prosecutrix. He had gone along with Devinder Singh P.T.I to the Staff- Room and he saw both quarrelling with each other and they were separated. After recess, prosecutrix applied for the leave and left the School for lodging report to the Police. PW-4 Amarjeet Kaur Peon did not say anything about the quarrel between prosecutrix and the respondent. She only stated that when she had brought the slip given by respondent for deleting the name of a student, prosecutrix told to call the respondent. After recess, prosecutrix applied for the leave and left the School for lodging report to the Police. PW-4 Amarjeet Kaur Peon did not say anything about the quarrel between prosecutrix and the respondent. She only stated that when she had brought the slip given by respondent for deleting the name of a student, prosecutrix told to call the respondent. After informing the respondent, she went to the Kitchen room. The complainant and the respondent while sitting in the Staff Room entered in hot words and gave beating to each other. She specifically denied that prosecutrix had informed her about the allegation of outraging her modesty. 8. On giving my thoughtful consideration to the above facts and also material improvements in the statement of the prosecutrix, I do not find that intention of the respondent was to out-rage the modesty of the prosecutrix or that by his act, her modesty was likely to be out raged. It appears to be a case of clash of false egoes. The material improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix shatters confidence in her version which otherwise, could have been attached to her testimony. Admittedly, immediately after the incident, she did not allege anything to the Head Master or any other lady member of the Staff with respect to the allegations of out raging her modesty. Even this fact also does not find mention in the initial report lodged to the police. The offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out as the prosecutrix was not performing any part of her official duty, in the performance of which the respondent had caused obstruction. The evidence discussed above is discrepant and dilatory and the case of the prosecution lacks probity therefore, in the circumstances the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with and this court cannot show its indulgence in this revision petition wherein no law point is involved. Accordingly revision petition is dismissed in limine.