STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SHEETAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has filed this appeal, by leave, challenging the judgment and order dtd. 8/8/2012, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 332 of 2005, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Ss. 354, 376/511 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution story, in nutshell, is that complainant's daughter (victim) was studying in Class IV-C in Siksha Niketan School, B.H.E.L. On 8/4/2004, her grandfather dropped her in the school at 7.20 AM. At around 10.30 AM, Headmistress telephoned in the victim's house and informed that one person came in the school and did obscene act with the victim, outraged her modesty and tried to commit rape on her. At that time, all other students except the victim were attending prayer outside. When the victim raised the alarm, school staff reached at the spot and then that person fled away from there. On this information, father and grandfather of the victim reached at the school at around 12.30 PM and when they were coming along with the victim to their house, the victim identified that person, who was found travelling on the road and who disclosed his name to be Sheetal Kumar. Thereafter the complainant (PW1) and his father (PW7) with the help of Lahri Singh Saini (PW2) and Satyaveer Singh (PW3) apprehended the accused at around 12.45 PM and they took him to the police station and the report was lodged.

(3.) In the present case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses. As regards the status of witnesses, PW1 is complainant and father of victim, PW6 is victim herself and PW7 is victim's grandfather. All three have supported the prosecution version. However, PW1 and PW7 happen to be hearsay witnesses. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 are independent witnesses and none of them supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. PW8 is a formal witness, who prepared the chick FIR, and PW9 is the Investigation Officer.