LAWS(HPH)-2013-5-87

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KARTAR CHAND

Decided On May 14, 2013
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
KARTAR CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has come in appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra in criminal case No. 122-II/2001 dated 22.6.2005, whereby the respondent, who was charged with and tried for offences punishable, under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 30.4.2001 in the morning around 6.45 A.M. while PW-2 Kanta Devi was extracting stones etc. from her field and stacking the same on the boundary, in the meantime, accused came and asked her that why she was stacking the stones on the boundary. The complainant asserted that she has been extracting the stones from her field and stacking the same on her boundary. She told the accused that he has no right to raise any objection. The accused caught hold of the complainant from her breast and also torn her clothes and also kissed on mouth with intention to outrage her modesty. The complainant raised hue and cry. Smt. Rukmani Devi on hearing screams, who had come there to fetch the water from hand pump, reached the spot. Nirmala Devi and Jogindera Devi also came running to rescue the complainant. The complainant also received injuries. She was also taken to Hospital for medical examination. Simple injuries were found on the person of the complainant. Site plan was prepared. Clothes of the complainant were taken into possession. Investigation was completed and after completing all the codal formalities, challan was put in the Court.

(2.) Prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove its case. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution case. He did not lead any evidence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused on 22.6.2005. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. He has contended that the prosecution case has been supported by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 to the hilt.