Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 150 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh

2013-03-02

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent who was charged for offence under Section 3 (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 354 IPC. 2. The respondent was prosecuted for the offence on the complaint having been made by the prosecutrix PW4 Roshani Devi who belongs to ‘chamar’ caste which is notified as a scheduled caste. On 26.9.2009 the prosecutrix along with her aunt PW5 Ratani Devi had gone to the attend Bhandara (religious feast) at village Naya Gaon. At around 4 PM when they were returning from the Bhandara after taking food, accused Prem Singh, one Rahul and another boy who belonged to Rajput caste met them on the way and caught hold of her. She complained that they were molesting her. So much so they solicited sex for monetary consideration. She was furious and pelted stones at them upon which they threatened her by shouting ‘Chamari tere ko dekh lenge’. She raised an alarm on which PW5 Ratani Devi intervened and saved her from the clutches of the accused. Report Ext.PW4/B was lodged by her with the police and thereafter she submitted application Ext.PW4/A to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, which was sent to Police Station Pachhad through JMIC Rajgarh at Sirmour and on the basis of this, FIR Ext.PW2/A was registered. The case was investigated by PW8 Shri Nishchint Singh Negi SDPO, Rajgarh. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Apart from the prosecutrix PW4 Roshani Devi, PW5 Ratani Devi, PW6 Dharam Pal, PW7 Tara Chand and PW9 Salig Ram were examined by the prosecution. The prosecutrix PW4 states that she and her maternal aunt PW5 Ratani Devi had gone to participate in Bhandara at village Naya Gaon, Tehsil Pachhad. At about 4 PM in the evening after taking food, they were returning to their house situated in village Khalog. On the way, accused Prem Singh, one Rahul and an another boy, whose name was not known, met them and caught hold her. They solicited sex from her and offered money. When she pelted stones at them, they uttered the offending words. Her aunt Ratani Devi rescued her from their clutches. On the way, accused Prem Singh, one Rahul and an another boy, whose name was not known, met them and caught hold her. They solicited sex from her and offered money. When she pelted stones at them, they uttered the offending words. Her aunt Ratani Devi rescued her from their clutches. She had filed an application Ext.PW4/B before the police but when no heed was paid to it, she had to file a complaint before Hon’ble the Chief Justice who had directed to take action in the matter. In cross examination, she was confronted with her complaint Ext.PW4/B, where no name of any of the accused is mentioned. She admits that she had given the statement Ext.D1 before the Juvenile Justice Board at Nahan. 4. Adverting to complaint Ext.PW4/B addressed to the SHO of Thana Pachhad signed by the complainant as also by her father, I do not find the name of any accused having been mentioned there. It simply states that when PW5 Ratani, who was accompanying the complainant, had gone down the road to urinate, then some loafers taking advantage of the absence of PW5 Ratani Devi started teasing the complainant, caught hold of her and started misbehaving with her. When the complainant shouted PW5 Ratani Devi rescued her from their clutches. 5. The complaint Ext.PW4/A, addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, received in the office of Chief Justice on 21.4.2010, is dated 22.3.2009. In statement Ext.D1 recorded before the Juvenile Justice Board the complainant did not state anything about the solicitation of sex etc. 6. PW-5 Ratani Devi states in her evidence Ext.D2 that she had not seen anybody on the spot because they had already fled from the spot. She stated that her statement Ext.D2 had been recorded before the Juvenile Justice Board. She was declared hostile and cross examined by the public prosecutor but nothing material has emerged. 7. According to the prosecutrix, accused Prem Singh is her class fellow and she knows him from his childhood. She also admits that complaint Ext.PW4/A was written by her at the instance of her uncle Salig Ram and that the accused being the resident of same village is like her brother. He also visited with her lonely but he had never misbehaved with her at any point of time. She also admits that complaint Ext.PW4/A was written by her at the instance of her uncle Salig Ram and that the accused being the resident of same village is like her brother. He also visited with her lonely but he had never misbehaved with her at any point of time. PW5 Ratani Devi is the paternal aunt of the prosecutrix who stated that she had not seen any accused and was declared hostile. 8. PW6 Dharam Pal was cousin of the complainant. He admitted his statement Ext.D3 before the Juvenile Justice Board and the fact that the complainant did not disclose the name of any accused. It is this evidence which was pressed in support of the case of the prosecution. 9. I find that the learned trial Court has analyzed the evidence in detail and holds that there were material contradictions. The learned Court considered the fact that the name of the accused has not been mentioned in complaint Ext.PW4/B and that PW7 Tara Chand, father of the complainant, also admits that names of the boys were not disclosed to him despite the fact that the accused was known to the complainant as admitted by her. The complainant had admittedly disclosed the incident to her father immediately on the next day, but as to why the name of the accused has not been disclosed is not clear. The learned Court then holds that she did not mention the date in her complaint Ext.PW4/B as also the date when the complaint was made to the police. From Ext.PW4/B it seems that complaint was made after 1.10.2009. The accused was named for the first time on 22.3.2009 when the prosecutrix complained to the High Court. In the totality of the evidence on record including the fact that other prosecution witnesses did not support the case, no case was made out. 10. I find that the learned trial Court has analyzed the evidence in detail and no interference is called for. The contradictions are material, which go to the root of the case. The complainant who was familiar and known to the accused as admitted by her did not disclose his name in her complaint Ext.PW4/B. I also find from Ext.PW4/A that it is dated 22.3.2009 (22.2.2009) and received in the office of Chief Justice on 21.4.2010 whereas the incident is of 26.9.2009. The complainant who was familiar and known to the accused as admitted by her did not disclose his name in her complaint Ext.PW4/B. I also find from Ext.PW4/A that it is dated 22.3.2009 (22.2.2009) and received in the office of Chief Justice on 21.4.2010 whereas the incident is of 26.9.2009. In these circumstances, how it can be possible to make a complaint in the month of March, 2009 when the incident was of 26.9.2009. Ext.PW4/B is bereft of any detail and the same has been allegedly made by the complainant through her father on the next date. In statements Ext.D1, Ext.D2 and Ext.D3 nothing has been stated to implicate the accused. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.