Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 982 (HP)

MANI DEVI v. MOTI RAM

2013-11-25

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT KULDIP SINGH, J.- 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.7.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Chachiot at Gohar in Complaint No.32-I/2005 acquitting the respondents. 2. THE facts in brief are that the appellant had filed complaint against the respondents alleging that on 6.3.2004 she was coming from the house of her niece at village Saroa accompanied by CW-2 Devku Devi. Respondent No.1 at 6.30 p.m. met them on the way. Respondent No.1 stopped the appellant on the way and restrained her from going ahead. He with the intention to outrage the modesty of the appellant put her hands on the breasts of the appellant and started using criminal force on the said particular part of the body of the appellant. The appellant raised hue and cry to rescue herself. Respondent No.1 tried to strip off her clothes, but the appellant was saved by CW-2 with great difficulty. There was no other person on the spot except CW-2. Respondent No.1 threatened that he had caused the kidnapping of the daughter of the appellant earlier and now he would kidnap the other daughter also. Respondent No.1 uttered obscene words and threatened that he would kill the appellant. Respondent No.1 ran way from the spot and reached the house of Sugain Ram and sent respondents No. 2 to 5 who had come there at a function. Respondents No. 2 to 5 tried to chase the appellant and threatened the appellant with dire consequences. They uttered obscene words and openly threatened that they would kill the appellant. The appellant and CW-2 saved themselves by running away from the spot. 3. THE respondents had inimical relations with the appellant. They had caused kidnapping of Indira Devi, daughter of the appellant. They threatened that they had kidnapped one daughter of the appellant and now they would kidnap her second daughter also. It has been alleged that on 8.3.2004, the appellant had filed compliant before the Superintendent of Police, Mandi who directed the SHO Gohar for necessary action. The respondents in connivance with the police tried to suppress the real matter and the police ultimately prepared a false and fictitious case under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. 4. THE appellant has alleged that respondent No.1 had committed offence punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 341 IPC, respondents No. 2 to 5 had committed offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. THE appellant has alleged that respondent No.1 had committed offence punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 341 IPC, respondents No. 2 to 5 had committed offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The preliminary evidence was recorded and the trial Court took cognizance, notice of accusation was put to respondent No.1 under Sections 354, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC and respondents No. 2 to 5 under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The respondents pleaded not guilty. The appellant examined three witnesses. Statements of the respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied the case of the appellant. The respondents examined three DWs in defence. On conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents. Hence appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is the case of the appellant that relations between her and the respondents were already inimical. According to the appellant incident took place on 6.3.2004 but she filed complaint Ext.CW-3/B before the Superintendent of Police, Mandi on 8.3.2004. In Ext.CW-3/B, it has been stated that the appellant was coming from the house of her daughter but in the Court the appellant has stated that she was coming from the house of her niece. In Ext.CW-3/B, it has not been stated that respondent No.1 caught hold of her breasts whereas in the present complaint it has been alleged that respondent No.1 in order to outrage her modesty used criminal force upon her breasts. The version given in Ext.CW-3/B is not in consonance with the case set up by the appellant in the Court. There is deviation in the earlier complaint submitted to the Superintendent of Police and the case set up in the Court. 6. IT emerges from the complaint that the kidnapping of Indira Devi is the foundation of inimical relations between the appellant and the respondents, but the appellant while appearing i the Court has shown her ignorance regarding the episode which involved her daughter. CW-2 is sister-in- law of appellant and not an independent witness. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on the statement of CW-2 without corroboration. On the basis of the complaint Ext. CW-3/B proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. were launched and disposed of on 31.12.2004. CW-2 is sister-in- law of appellant and not an independent witness. Therefore, it is not safe to rely on the statement of CW-2 without corroboration. On the basis of the complaint Ext. CW-3/B proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. were launched and disposed of on 31.12.2004. The complaint in the Court was filed on 29.12.2004 after more than nine months of the alleged incident. There is no explanation for filing the belated complaint. DW-1 has stated that on 6.3.2004, respondent No.1 was ill and was at his quarter at Pandoh. The complainant in the Court has stated generally about respondents No. 2 to 5, but individual act played by respondents No. 2 to 5 has not been elaborated. The possibility cannot be ruled out that because of enmity the appellant has filed the complaint. The learned Magistrate has taken a possible view from the evidence after appreciation. It is settled law that in appeal merely other view is possible is no ground for reversing the acquittal. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. Appeal is without merit. 7. IN view of above, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents are discharged.