STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUDERSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACQUITTAL of the Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, passed in Case No. 45 -2 of 2003, on 23rd March, 2004, by the learned trial Court, has been challenged by the State in the present appeal.

(2.) THE Respondent is admittedly a grand -son of the prosecutrix. Her husband was working in I.T.B.P. outside the State and she was living alongwith her two minor daughters in the house of her in -laws alongwith her mother -in -law. Her father -in -law used to reside in another village with his eldest son. On 8.4.2003, "Kirtan" was going on in the temple nearby where 30 -40 persons had gathered. The prosecutrix was making her minor daughters asleep in her room. It is alleged that the Respondent entered into the room, switched -off the light and embraced her. On this, she raised hue and cry and resisted, resulting into the breaking of her bangles. On hearing the cries, her mother -in -law PW2 Chhaya Devi also came out. The Respondent made an escape and jumped on the lintel of the house of PW4 Inder Ram and fled away. Next day, the prosecutrix sent the message to her father -in -law and on 11.4.2003 the matter was reported to the police in terms of FIR Ext.PW1/A. Police visited the spot and the prosecutrix produced the broken bangles which were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B. Police also prepared the site plan Ext.PW5/A. She was also got medically examined and the doctor found an abrasion on left dorsum of hand above 1st metacarpal with scab non -tender in touching and the injury was found to be simple having been caused within four days. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the Challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the Respondent.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that the case of the prosecution stands proved by the prosecutrix as well as by mother -in -law and PW3 Jogindra affords the corroboration to their version and the medical evidence proves the case.