JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. —By medium of this appeal, the State has assailed the judgment dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 43/2003, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ''I.P.C.''). 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased was daughter of P.W. Mati Devi and the accused who was posted as Booking Clerk in HRTC, Bus Stand, Jogindernagar, used to tease her. On 5.9.2002, P.W. Mati Devi lodged an FIR against the accused and one Hoshiar Singh on the allegations that the deceased had told her that she was taken by the accused to his quarter on the pretext that Megh Singh was waiting for her and on reaching there, the accused attempted to outrage her modesty. She further told that the deceased resisted and raised hue and cry; and came out from the quarter of the accused. But, even thereafter during the day time, both the accused and Hoshiar Singh started harassing the deceased constraining her (deceased) to make a written complaint against the accused to his higher officer at HRTC Bus Stand, Jogindernagar. It was on account of such continuous harassment that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on 4.9.2002. 3. The case was investigated and during investigation, it was revealed that the accused had attempted to outrage modesty of the deceased in his quarter and thereafter, the accused started harassing her, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide by jumping into ''Rana Khad''. Final report came to be prepared and presented in the Court. 4. The charges under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case and thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded, wherein he denied the prosecution case in its entirety. 6. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence on record acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 I.P.C. vide impugned judgment dated 27.3.2008 constraining the State to file the instant appeal. 7. 6. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence on record acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 306 I.P.C. vide impugned judgment dated 27.3.2008 constraining the State to file the instant appeal. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, that of the mother and relatives including the brother of the deceased - P.W. Mati Devi and P.W.10 Sunil Kumar. 8. Learned counsel for the accused has supported the impugned judgment dated 27.3.2008. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. Before adverting to the statements of P.W. Mati Devi, P.W.3 Pawan Kumar, P.W.6 Ajay Pal, P.W.7 Jagdish and P.W.0 Sunil Kumar, it would be necessary to make note of the depositions of other witnesses. 11. P.W., Dr. Arun Kumari, conducted the post examination of the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem report, Ext. P.W./D, wherein it was opined that the deceased died due to severe intracranial injury and larynged spasm due to drowning leading to cardiac respiratory failure. 12. P.W., Nanak Chand, is brother-in-law of the deceased and claimed to have visited the spot at ''Rana Khad'', from where the police had recovered the dead body of the deceased. 13. P.W., Ramesh Dixit, Superintendent in HRTC office, Baijnath, deposed that at the relevant time, accused was posted as Booking Clerk at HRTC Bus Stand Jogindernagar and Daljit Singh was the Regional Manager, HRTC Baijnath. He further stated that deceased had given a complaint, Ext. P.W./A to him, which he further handed over to diary and dispatch Clerk. He identified the endorsement made by Daljit Singh at point ''A'' in the complaint, Ext. P.W./A and further claimed to be well conversant with the handwriting and signature of Daljit Singh. 14. P.W.6, Santokh Singh, Addl. S.P., stated that he had partly investigated the case and on 6.9.2002 collected the complaint, Ext. P.W./A from Ramesh Dixit vide memo, Ext. P.W./B in the presence of witnesses Subhash Chand and Bhup Singh. 15. P.W., Hoshiar Singh and P.W., Philu Ram stated that the exercise book, Ext. P.W./A and one note book, Ext. P.W./B of the deceased were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the house of the deceased vide memo, Ext. P.W./A from Ramesh Dixit vide memo, Ext. P.W./B in the presence of witnesses Subhash Chand and Bhup Singh. 15. P.W., Hoshiar Singh and P.W., Philu Ram stated that the exercise book, Ext. P.W./A and one note book, Ext. P.W./B of the deceased were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the house of the deceased vide memo, Ext. P.W./C. 16. P.W.1, Rakesh Kumar, stated that the accused had made the disclosure statement and then identified his quarter at Jogindernagar. 17. P.W.2, Bhagwan Singh, proved on record appointment and posting orders of the accused. 18. P.W.4, Jagjeet Singh, had clicked the photographs of the dead body of the deceased, Ext. P.W.4/A-1 to Ext. P.W.4/A-3. 19. Now adverting to the statement of P.W., Mati Devi, mother of the deceased. She has categorically stated that on 4.9.2002, the deceased after returning from Computer Centre at Jogindernagar, told her that the accused and Hoshiar Singh were harassing her. She further told that she was taken to the residence of the accused on the pretext that her brother had given some articles to him. The deceased further told her that when she visited his residence, then the accused bolted the door and molested her inside the room. She further told that she was even raped by the accused. The deceased also told her that she had given an application against the accused to his authority where he was employed. The deceased had gone to Jogindernagar on the next day, but did not return and later she came to know that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping into river near power house. 20. P.W., Mati Devi, while being cross-examined was confronted with certain facts recorded in the FIR over which she had made several improvements in her statement recorded in the Court, which shall be discussed later on. 21. P.W., Pawan Kumar is the cousin of the deceased, who in his examination in chief, deposed that on 3.9.2002, deceased had come to his house in the morning and told him that she was being harassed by Hoshiar Singh. Thereafter, on the same day, he met Hoshiar Singh in the hospital at Jogindernagar and confronted him and he in turn, told him that the deceased was being harassed by the accused. He further deposed that on the next day brother of the deceased had informed him that the deceased had not returned home. Thereafter, on the same day, he met Hoshiar Singh in the hospital at Jogindernagar and confronted him and he in turn, told him that the deceased was being harassed by the accused. He further deposed that on the next day brother of the deceased had informed him that the deceased had not returned home. They went to Jogindernagar to trace the deceased, where they came to know that she had committed suicide. On this, he along with brother of the deceased went to trace the body and came to know that dead body of a girl was lying in the river, which they identified to be that of the deceased. He further stated that he did not go with the deceased on 3.9.2002 to confront the accused and at that stage, he was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. 22. P.W., Ajay Pal, stated that the deceased was his class fellow and was undergoing computer training at Jogindernagar. On 3.9.2002, he met the deceased at Bus Stand Jogindernagar at about 2.45/3.00 P.M. Her brother, Sunil Kumar and one more boy were also with her at that time. They were talking about one Hoshiar Singh. Even this witness was also declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. 23. P.W.7, Jagdish is also a cousin of the deceased, who deposed that in the month of October, 2002, he met the deceased at Bus Stand Jogindernagar at about 9.00/10.00 A.M. The deceased at that time was going to the computer centre and was weeping and on enquiry, she revealed that she was being threatened by the accused and Hoshiar Singh. He further deposed that they went to HRTC office, where the deceased gave an application Ext. P.W./A to the Clerk. 24. P.W.0, Sunil Kumar is younger brother of the deceased, who in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 3.9.2002, he along with his cousin Pawan Kumar was at Bus Stand Jogindernagar and at about 9.30 or 9.45 A.M., the deceased came to them and told that she was being harassed by the accused and Hoshiar Singh and thereafter, the deceased left for her college. He further deposed that he along with Pawan Kumar went to Hospital, where they confronted Hoshiar Singh as to why they were harassing the deceased and Hoshiar Singh said that he did not harass the deceased. He further deposed that he along with Pawan Kumar went to Hospital, where they confronted Hoshiar Singh as to why they were harassing the deceased and Hoshiar Singh said that he did not harass the deceased. Thereafter, they took the deceased to the hospital, where Hoshiar Singh asked the deceased as to why she had gone with the accused. The deceased told that she had been sent by Hoshiar Singh on the pretext that certain articles had been sent by her brother, which were lying in the quarter of the accused. Thereafter, this witness along with Pawan Kumar went to the HRTC Office, Jogindernagar to confront the accused, but he was not available there at that time. The deceased then gave written application Ext. P.W./A to the Regional Manager, HRTC, Jogindernagar. He further deposed that on the next day, when the deceased did not return home, he along with Philu Ram went in search of the deceased to Jogindernagar and at taxi stand, they came to know that a dead body was lying in the stream. The police extricated the dead body and they identified it to be that of the deceased. Inquest reports, Ext. P.W.0/A and Ext. P.W.0/B were also signed by him and Philu Ram. This witness further stated that the deceased had also told him that she was taken by the accused to his residence, where he offered some money to her and also closed the door of the house. She ran away from his house. He also deposed that the deceased was being harassed by the accused and Hoshiar Singh and, as such, she committed suicide. 25. It would be noticed that P.W., Mati Devi, who is mother of the deceased and complainant in the instant case, has made certain improvements while appearing as a witness in the Court. In the FIR lodged by her, she had stated that her daughter had told her that the accused had taken the deceased to his quarter by deceiving her that Megh Singh was in his quarter and he also gave allurement of marriage, whereas while appearing in the Court she set out an entirely different story by stating that the respondent had taken the deceased to his quarter on the pretext that her brother had sent some articles to her which were lying in his quarter. She also made improvement in her statement by deposing that the deceased had told her that the accused had committed rape on her in his quarter, whereas as per the prosecution version, the accused had only attempted to outrage her modesty. She further stated that she had not reported portions A to A and B to B of the FIR, Ext. P.W./A to the police. 26. Likewise, other material witness, P.W.0, Sunil Kumar, younger brother of the deceased, has set out entirely a different story, which is inconsistent and contradictory to the very case set up by the prosecution as well as with the statement of P.W., Mati Devi. P.W.0, Sunil Kumar, deposed that the deceased was sent by Hoshiar Singh to the quarter of the accused on the pretext that articles sent by her brother were lying in the quarter of the accused. Thus, obviously, his statement is in total contradiction and inconsistent to the statement of P.W. Mati Devi. 27. As per P.W.0 Sunil Kumar, he along with the deceased went to the office of HRTC at Jogindernagar during the day time and the deceased had given the complaint, Ext. P.W./A in the office, whereas the prosecution case is that complaint, Ext. P.W./A was given by the deceased in the HRTC office, Jogindernagar in the morning. 28. Now, in case the contents of complaint, Ext. P.W./A are perused, it would be revealed that the deceased was taken by the accused to his quarter on 30.8.2002, where the accused is alleged to have attempted to outrage her modesty, whereas P.W. Mati Devi and P.W.0 Sunil Kumar have categorically stated that the deceased was taken by the accused to his quarter one day prior to the occurrence, i.e. 3.9.2002. Rather P.W.0 Sunil Kumar has been emphatic that the deceased was sent by Hoshiar Singh to the quarter of the accused one day prior to 3.9.2002. Therefore, it is evident that the statements of P.W. Mati Devi and P.W.0 Sunil Kumar are not only contradictory to each other, but are irreconcilable. 29. P.W. Pawan Kumar, who is none other than the cousin of the deceased, as observed earlier, was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor, as he had refused to toe the line of the prosecution. Therefore, it is evident that the statements of P.W. Mati Devi and P.W.0 Sunil Kumar are not only contradictory to each other, but are irreconcilable. 29. P.W. Pawan Kumar, who is none other than the cousin of the deceased, as observed earlier, was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor, as he had refused to toe the line of the prosecution. In his statement he denied that he along with deceased and her brother Sunil Kumar had gone to the office of the accused in order to confront him as to why had been harassing the deceased. He further deposed that application, Ext. P.W./A was not given by the deceased to the Regional Manager, HRTC Jogindernagar in his presence. 30. Likewise, P.W. Ajay Pal, who is class fellow of the deceased was also declared hostile and in his cross-examination, had categorically stated that the deceased had not written the complaint, Ext. P.W./A in his presence. He also stated that he did not know whether the complaint, Ext. P.W./A was in fact written by the deceased herself. He also stated that the deceased had not told him that the accused had attempted to outrage her modesty in his quarter. He further stated that he did not accompany the deceased to the office of Regional Manager, Jogindernagar. Lastly, he stated that he did not report portions A to A and B to B of his statement to the police. 31. Thus, it is evident that P.W. Pawan Kumar and P.W. Ajay Pal have not supported the prosecution case and looking to the nature of the relationship they shared with the deceased, their statements definitely cast a serious dent on the prosecution case. 32. Now, in case the statement of P.W. Jagdish, who is also cousin of the deceased, is again adverted to, he had deposed that the deceased had given an application, Ext. P.W./A to the Clerk in HRTC Office, Jogindernagar, but his statement is totally inconsistent with the statement given by P.W.0 Sunil Kumar, who has categorically stated P.W. Jagdish was not with him when the deceased gave application, Ext. P.W./A in the HRTC office, Jogindernagar. 33. That apart, how the deceased happened to visit the quarter of the accused is also not clearly spelt out by the witnesses. P.W./A in the HRTC office, Jogindernagar. 33. That apart, how the deceased happened to visit the quarter of the accused is also not clearly spelt out by the witnesses. P.W.0 Sunil Kumar claimed that the deceased was sent by Hoshiar Singh to the quarter of the accused on the pretext that certain articles sent by her brother were lying in the quarter of the accused. This is in contradiction to the prosecution case that the accused had taken the deceased to his quarter. 34. The discussions made so far would reveal that even though there was sufficient evidence to prove on record that Hoshiar Singh was also harassing the deceased, but it is surprising or rather shocking to note that he has not been arrayed as an accused. 35. P.W.8, Uttam Singh, who is Investigating Officer, had categorically deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that Hoshiar Singh intended to blackmail the deceased as he had seen the deceased coming from the residence of the accused and it was also revealed that Hoshiar Singh had threatened to defame her. 36. Likewise, P.W. Mati Devi has categorically stated that on 4.9.2002, the deceased had returned home after 2.00 P.M. and told her that the accused and Hoshiar Singh were harassing her. 37. P.W.0, Sunil Kumar, has specifically stated that on 3.9.2002 at about 9.30 or 9.45 A.M., the deceased had come to him and told that she was being harassed by the accused and Hoshiar Singh. Not only this, as observed earlier, he has further deposed that he had gone to confront the accused and Hoshiar Singh. 38. P.W., Pawan Kumar, has also categorically stated that on 3.9.2002, the deceased had come to his house in the morning and told him that Hoshiar Singh was harassing her and on the same day, he along with the deceased had gone to hospital at Jogindernagar and confronted Hoshiar Singh as to why he was harassing the deceased. 39. Even P.W. Ajay Pal, who is class mate of the deceased, has also stated that when he met the deceased at Bus Stand Jogindernagar along with her brother, the deceased and her brother were talking about Hoshiar Singh. 40. 39. Even P.W. Ajay Pal, who is class mate of the deceased, has also stated that when he met the deceased at Bus Stand Jogindernagar along with her brother, the deceased and her brother were talking about Hoshiar Singh. 40. To the similar effect is the statement of P.W. Jagdish, who also happened to be the cousin of the deceased and has stated that the deceased had informed him that she was being threatened by the accused and Hoshiar Singh. 41. Noticeably, there is no evidence on record led by the prosecution to show that the deceased had committed suicide as none has seen the deceased jumping into the river. Moreover, there is no suicide note on record which though not a pre-requisite but this could have gone a long way to prove that the deceased had in fact committed suicide. 42. However, what is more intriguing is the manner in which the case has been investigated by P.W.18 Uttam Singh, who despite taking into possession exercise book Ext. P.W.8/A and note book Ext. P.W.8/B of the deceased vide memo Ext. P.W.8/C, took no steps whatsoever to have these compared with the alleged complaint Ext. P.W.5/A made by the deceased. That apart, we have no hesitation to conclude that the Investigation Officer has deliberately chosen to take into possession the aforesaid these two documents as it would have been extremely difficult for even the handwriting expert to compare Ext. P.W.5/A with the aforesaid two documents as they only contained numerical figures and there were hardly any alphabets in it. 43. Moreover, despite there being a prima-facie material to connect Hoshiar Singh with the alleged offence has deliberately not arrayed him as an accused, yet further said Hoshiar Singh has not even been cited as a witness. 44. Even though, no case of interference with the impugned judgment is made out, however, we have no hesitation to conclude that it was on account of faulty investigation conducted by P.W.8 Uttam Singh, retired SI/SHO, resident of Village Tharu, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra that this Court has left with no other option but to acquit the accused, but at the same time is also not in a position to initiate any action even against Hoshiar Singh. However, the matter cannot be set at rest here. 45. However, the matter cannot be set at rest here. 45. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai and others, 2014 (136) AIC 129 (SC) : (2014) 5 SCC 108 has categorically held that on the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the investigating/prosecuting official(s) concerned responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observations in the aforesaid case, which reads thus:- "(21) On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly we direct, the Home Department of every State Government, to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation and prosecution are purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6 months." 46. We are fully conscious of the fact that the investigating officer, P.W.8 Uttam Singh in this case has retired nearly a decade back, but that cannot be a ground to show any sympathy and leniency in his favour. After all, it is a young woman of 21 years, who lost her precious life. 47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, we direct the Home Department of the State to take appropriate departmental action against P.W.8 Uttam Singh, as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. 47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, we direct the Home Department of the State to take appropriate departmental action against P.W.8 Uttam Singh, as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. Bail bond is ordered to be discharged.