STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 354 Indian Penal Code was reversed in Criminal Appeal No. 15 -P/X/2004 decided on 17.11.2004 by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the State is in appeal on the ground that the learned first appellate court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective.

(2.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(3.) NEXT day in the evening FIR Ext. PW1/A was lodged by the complainant but she refused to get herself medically examined. At the time of lodging of the FIR, her mother was also present. There was delay of 22 hours in lodging the FIR. According to the prosecutrix, the delay was attributable to the fact that her husband was not present in the house. But it is nowhere stated that as to when her husband came to the house and what conversation took place with him and further that how the mother of the prosecutrix came to know about the incident. Even she was not examined as to what complainant had revealed to her. In cross -examination, she (PW1) denied any litigation with the Respondent prior to the alleged incident and also that always there have been quarrel inter se them due to throwing of the garbage and water. She also denied having taken place any dispute with respect to it between them three days prior to the alleged incident, i.e., on 10th August, 2002. However, she admitted that their village is thickly populated village where about 36 family reside. Whereas PW2 Salochana Devi her close relative shattered her version. The complainant is closely related to her being daughter -in -law of her younger brother. She stated that Respondent had retired from the Army and since when he is settled down in his village, he had landed dispute with the complainant and the relations between them are so deteriorated that even they are not in speaking and visiting terms with each other. They had also boycotted to participate in the functions of each other. She further admitted that there is continuity of dispute between both the parties sometimes on the water and sometimes with respect to throwing of garbage. She admitted that on 10th August, 2002 there had been a quarrel between the Respondent and the complainant over water, thereafter she did not notice any dispute between them.