Judgment V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 01.10.2005, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., acquitting the respondent herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the accused’, for the offences under Sections 457, 354, 324, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in short ‘IPC’. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that complaint Ex.PA was submitted by the complainant Smt. Phoola Devi (PW-1) to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, H.P., against the accused, wherein his brother Prem Lal, brother’s wife Rajni and mother (name not mentioned) were also named as co-accused, on the allegations that on 17.07.2001, at 10.00 AM, when the complainant was taking water from the public tap, all the aforesaid persons came there with an intent to pick up a quarrel with her. It was further alleged that the aforesaid Rajni tried to persuade the complainant to agree to the advances made by the accused to her to develop physical intimacy with him. However, according to the complainant, she rebuked the said Rajni for making such an immoral proposal, owing to which all the aforesaid persons gave beatings to her with fist and kick blows and when she raised alarm one Chet Ram came there and rescued her. It was further alleged by the complainant that on that very day during night at about 11.30 PM, the accused came to her house and gave a kick blow to the door of the house with force and as a result the temporary bolt of the room got opened. Thereafter, the accused with an intent to outrage her modesty pounced upon her and started calling her names such as ‘haramjadi’ and proclaimed that he would leave her only after satisfying his lust. However, when she declined, he caught hold of the string of her ‘salwar’ and started breaking open the same and also gave teeth bite on her back and tore her shirt. In order to save her honour she raised alarm and consequently Govindu came there. On seeing him the accused fled away from the spot after proclaiming that as soon as he would get a chance he would rape her and would also kill her. It was lastly stated by the complainant that her husband remains out of home in Kinnaur in connection with labour work. 3. On seeing him the accused fled away from the spot after proclaiming that as soon as he would get a chance he would rape her and would also kill her. It was lastly stated by the complainant that her husband remains out of home in Kinnaur in connection with labour work. 3. On completion of investigation it was concluded by the police that neither there was any witness against the aforesaid Prem Lal, Rajni and mother of the accused nor any offence was established against them. 4. The complainant while appearing as PW-1 has also not stated anything in chief examination about the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 17.07.2001, at 10.00 AM, at the public tap. However, in cross examination she has admitted that such quarrel had taken place and the same continued for about two hours, in which there had been hurling of abuses from both sides. 5. In view of the above, the very genesis of the prosecution case becomes highly suspect and it appears that a coloured and exaggerated version verging on fabricated allegations had been brought before the court owing to pre-existing inimical relations between the parties for sufficiently long time, as admitted by the complainant as PW-1 and also stated by PW-3 Smt. Phoola Devi, Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat. The possibility that the injuries mentioned in Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PW-5/A were suffered by the complainant in the mutual fight during the aforesaid alleged occurrence of 17.7.2001 in the morning at 10.00 AM, can also not be ruled out. 6. Furthermore, whereas the complainant in her deposition as PW-1 has stated that on hearing her alarm the aforesaid Govindu, who has been examined as PW-4 Govind Ram, had arrived on the spot scene and had in fact entered her house and at that time the accused was holding her from her neck, who had thereafter fled away from there. However, PW-2 Krishan Lal, who is her son, has stated during cross examination that Govindu had not come inside the house and in fact he had come after about 15 minutes and when the accused had fled away from the spot scene, Govindu was outside the house. 7. Furthermore, PW-4 Govind Ram has also admitted during cross examination that he has a dispute with father of the accused concerning a path, regarding which many panchayats had been held. 7. Furthermore, PW-4 Govind Ram has also admitted during cross examination that he has a dispute with father of the accused concerning a path, regarding which many panchayats had been held. He has also admitted that his family is not in speaking and visiting terms with the family of the accused, though he has denied that he was stating falsely owing to this reason. 8. In view of the contradictions in the evidence of the complainant as PW-1, her son PW-2 Krishan Lal and PW-4 Govind Ram, the very presence of PW-4 Govind Ram on the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence relating to the night of 17.07.2001 at 11.30 PM at the house of the complainant becomes doubtful. 9. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.