Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1487 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sushil Kumar

2014-10-20

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. In terms of impugned judgment dated 21.10.2005, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 21/2 of 2005, respondent stands acquitted, in relation to offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecutrix (PW-4) lodged a complaint against the accused, on the basis of which FIR No. 20/2005, dated 18.1.2005, was registered at Police Station (East), Shimla, H.P. Allegedly, accused voluntarily caused hurt, wrongfully confined and used criminal force with an intent of outraging the modesty of the complainant. This was on 17th January, 2005, at 1.30 P.M. in a public place i.e. near the bus shelter, opposite to the shop of Deepak Sood (PW.1). Investigation was conducted by ASI Atul Kumar (PW.3). Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Ramesh Chand (PW.2), who issued MLC (Ext. PW.2/A). With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 323, 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. Also prosecutrix pressurised the accused of solemnizing his marriage with her. No evidence in defence was led. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. R.S. Verma and Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate Generals, on behalf of the State, as also Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. I have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. I find that the judgment rendered by the trial court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) as placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. I find that the judgment rendered by the trial court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) as placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal results into a right, vesting in the accused and unless and until the judgment rendered by the trial Court is reversed, based on the ground of perversity, illegality or incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into erroneous findings, Appellate Court would refrain from setting aside the judgment of acquittal. 8. In the instant case, there is material on record in the shape of document (Ext.D.X), establishing intimacy between the accused and the prosecutrix. She was deeply in love with him. It appears that their relationship could not fructify, successfully into marriage hence parties took to acrimony. 9. The alleged crime took place in broad day light in the presence of witnesses, one of whom examined, has not supported the prosecution case at all. PW.1 was declared hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor and despite intensive cross examination, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. 10. As per Dr. Ramesh Chand (PW.2), injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix were simple. In fact they are scratch marks. Medical evidence by itself would not prove the prosecution case. 11. The issue, which needs to be considered is as to whether testimony of the prosecutrix (PW.4) inspires confidence and as to whether prosecution has been able to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt or not. Prosecutrix admits her intimacy with the accused. The relationship was longstanding. Her testimony in Court with regard to alleged overt acts, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. She admits that she was not in correct state of mind at the time of reporting the matter. She was mentally disturbed. The matter was also not brought to the notice of the police promptly. As an afterthought, perhaps to pressurise the accused, with an intent of solemnizing the marriage, complaint was lodged. After all, crime took place in the heart of Shimla town, then why is it that she did not lodge the report promptly and/or immediately got herself examined medically. She admits that the incident took place in front of the STD booth where public was present. After all, crime took place in the heart of Shimla town, then why is it that she did not lodge the report promptly and/or immediately got herself examined medically. She admits that the incident took place in front of the STD booth where public was present. Her testimony alone, uninspiring in confidence, would not be sufficient enough to prove the charge. 12. The Court below, in my considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 13. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.