KALI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 18.3.2002/21.3.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, in Case No. 69 -1 of 2001, titled as State of H.P. vs. Kali Ram, as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. vide judgment dated 1.5.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6 -S/10 of 2004/02, titled as Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the accused -petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In relation to FIR No. 44 of 2001 dated 15.5.2001 registered at 11.20 a.m. at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 354, 323, 325 and 506, I.P.C. The trial Court in terms of the aforesaid judgment convicted the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 354 and 323, IPC. The State or the complainant did not prefer any appeal challenging the order of acquittal of the accused with regard to the other charges. However, against the judgment of conviction, accused preferred an appeal, which stands dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 14.5.2001 prosecutrix (PW -1) was going to the house of her sister, who was married to Shri Karam Chand (PW -4) at Village Ghanari. From her house in Village Dyandli she came to Nerwa from where she took a Bus upto a place known as Rawelpul and from where she started walking through the forest. When she reached at a place known as Tulki Khad, accused Kali Ram suddenly appeared and assaulted her. He pressed her breast and gave tooth bite on her cheek. This was so done with intent to outrage her modesty. Accused pushed her as a result of which she fell on the ground and her tooth broke. Also accused gave beatings with fist blows and kicks. When prosecutrix cried for help, her brother -in -law (PW -4) arrived on the spot alongwith Rajinder alias Hem and Santosh Kumar (DW -1). Seeing them, accused ran away from the spot, but threatened the prosecutrix of doing away with her life, if she disclosed the incident to any person. Thereafter, prosecutrix went to the house of her sister at Village Ghanari alongwith her brother -in -law. Following morning i.e. 15.5.2001 alongwith PW -4 she came to the Police Station and lodged a report at 11.20 a.m. Prosecutrix was taken to the Hospital by the Investigating Officer Raj Kumar (PW -6), where she was examined by Dr. S.L. Chauhan (PW -5), who prepared Medico Legal Certificate. For the purpose of dental examination, she was referred to Ripon Hospital at Shimla, where she was examined by Dr. Vijay Chauhan (PW -2), who issued Medico Legal Certificate (Ext.PW -2/A) enclosing x -ray (Ext.PW -2/B) and film (Ext.PW -2/C). Investigating Officer Raj Kumar (PW -6) visited the spot on 20.5.2001 and conducted the investigation. There he collected the tooth and prepared the site plan. He recorded statements of the witnesses and with the completion of investigation presented the challan in the Court.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, in all prosecution examined six witnesses, including the prosecutrix and her brother -in -law Shri Karam Chand (PW -4). Significantly, prosecution did not examine two material witnesses for the reason that they had been won over. After the statement of the accused was recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which he took up a plea of false implication, apart from prior animosity and incident of scuffle, which took place between him, prosecutrix and Karam Chand (PW -4), the accused examined two witnesses in defence. Those witnesses were not examined by the prosecution.