STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 19.2.2003, vide which he a acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 31.8.1999, at 8.30 P.M., a report was lodged at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, by one Kumari Dipika Devi, aged about 16 years, that she is living with her maternal uncle Shakti Chand for the last 2 years. On 29.8.1999, at 5.00 P.M., she had gone to PWD Colony Dhaneta, for cutting of grass, since they had taken permission for grass in lieu of cow dung. It was alleged that Chowkidar Manohar Lal of PWD Colony came near to her, caught hold of her and committed 'Bura Kaam ' (sexual intercourse) with her. She stated that she raised an alarm and he gave a threat that in case she told this fact to anybody, he will kill her. He went towards his house in village Dhaneta and because of fear, she did not tell this occurrence to her maternal uncle and aunt. However, her maternal uncle 's sons Sony and Monu, who had seen the occurrence, informed her Mami Rasksha Devi. It was alleged that her maternal uncle was not in the house, who came back today and the matter was brought to his knowledge and she came to Police Station to lodge the report with her maternal uncle. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the facts of the case, it is clear that first point taken by the learned Additional Advocate General that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. Though, the learned trial Court had observed that there has been in -ordinate delay in registration of the FIR. It was observed by the learned trial Court that the occurrence took place on 29.8.1999 at 5.00 P.M. The FIR Ext. DX was lodged by the respondent on 31.8.1999 and thereafter, the present FIR was registered at 8.30 P.M. on 31.8.1999. The reasoning given was that the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, namely, PW -7 Shakti Chand was away from the house, which explanation was not found to be plausible.