PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 27.02.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2004, 21/2005, affirming judgment dated 31.05.2004/01.06.2004 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, in P.C. No. 50 -II/ 2000 convicting the petitioner under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay fine ofRs. 2,000/ - with default clause has been assailed in this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.01.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. at village Huen, the petitioner used criminal force against PW -1 complainant with intend to outrage her modesty. It has been alleged that complainant was taking her cattle to the water source when she was intercepted by the petitioner, who finding complainant alone pounced upon her and caught hold of her breasts and thereafter petitioner indulged in indecent behaviour. The complainant tried to rescue herself, but could not do so. The clothes worn by the complainant were also torn when she tried to free herself from the clutches of the petitioner. The complainant raised alarm on which her father PW -3 Gurdyal Singh, sister -in -law PW -2 Khyalo Devi found petitioner criminally assaulting her. The petitioner thereafter fled away from the spot.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent and has also gone through the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that two Courts below have gravely erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence which he has not committed. The impugned judgment is based upon mis -construction and misinterpretation of evidence. There is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The prayer has been made for acceptance of the revision and acquittal of the petitioner. The learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that in such matters honour of the family is involved, therefore, generally time is taken before reporting the matter to the police. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no scope for interference.