STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS BANTI SON OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF CHATROKHARI (SUNDERNAGAR), P.S. SUNDERNAGAR, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 23.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2003 setting aside judgment dated 25.4.2003/21.5.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar in Police Challan No. 116 -I/98 convicting the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 451 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence under Section 323 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - for offence under Section 354 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/ - for offence punishable under Section 451 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that PW -1 Sumitra Devi was the tenant of PW -2 Dhani Devi in a house situated at Chatrokhari. She was residing there with her husband PW -3 Parkash Chand and children. The adjoining room of the building was in possession of Dhani Devi. On 6.12.1997 at about 6.30 p.m. Parkash Chand was working in the house of Brij Lal, Patwari as beldar. Sumitra Devi was preparing meals and the door of the room was closed. The respondent came there, pushed the door and came inside the room. He caught PW -1 and molested her by pressing her breasts. He told the victim that in case she would raise alarm, she would be defamed. PW -1 raised alarm which attracted Dhani Devi and PW -3 Parkash Chand.

(3.) ON the conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506 IPC. The respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined six PWs and produced some documents. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case. It has been submitted by him that his father had lodged a case against Dhani Devi for selling liquor and for this reason a false case has been made against him. In defence DW -1 K.C. Katoch was examined. On conclusion of trial, the respondent was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as noticed above. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 23.12.2004 accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent, hence appeal by the State.