TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2005 affirming judgment dated 4.11.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Hamirpur in Criminal Case No. 80 -II/2004 convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 354, 506 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief is that PW -1 prosecutrix came to Police Station alongwith her father in law PW -5 Jhondu Ram. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded, she has stated that on 19.4.2004 she was carrying fire wood from place Sikander to her residence. At about 7.00 - 7.15 p.m. petitioner came on the spot, he undressed himself and pulled ˜Dupatta' of the prosecutrix. On asking what he was trying to do, the petitioner replied that he is doing what a man does with a woman. The petitioner pulled the prosecutrix towards him after throwing fire wood load which was on her head. The prosecutrix was forcibly embraced by the petitioner. The prosecutrix raised hue and cry, the petitioner threatened that he would kill her. On hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, her sister in law PW -4 Sunita Devi came on the spot. On seeing Sunita Devi, the petitioner fled away with his clothes. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother and father in law. On the statement of the prosecutrix, FIR Ex.PW -1/A was registered. The investigation was conducted, spot map Ex.PW -3/A was prepared. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared. On the basis of material on record, charge for offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 IPC was framed and put to the petitioner. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) 11.2005 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 IPC which has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 28.7.2006. 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the material on record and erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 354, 506 IPC. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner. The view taken by the two Courts below emerges from the evidence on record. He supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the revision.