STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of learned JMIC, Bilaspur, dated 19.4.1999, vide which the appellants were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police by PW-1 Sunita Devi that on 13.3.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. she had gone to call her sister PW-6 Sonu Devi from the fields where she had gone for grazing their goats. It was alleged that when the complainant was crossing the Nalah, both the accused persons came there and accused Krishan Lal pressed her breasts and started tearing her clothes. She raised an alarm and her sister PW-6 Sonu Devi, her mother PW-4 Nanki Devi and her aunt PW-9 Banti Devi came there and the accused ran away and while leaving the place, they also gave her Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. threat. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the accused persons who were tried by the learned trial court leading to their acquittal, as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General were that the learned trial court had wrongly disbelieved the version of the complainant and other eye witnesses mainly on the ground that since they are closely related to the complainant, they are interested witnesses and as such their statements were wrongly disbelieved. It was submitted that there are no material contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses and the persons working nereby had not come to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Since they came afterwards and they were not material witnesses. Therefore, the statements of the relatives of the complainant, who are the only eye witnesses, have to be carefully appreciated which prove that the guilt of the respondent No.1 was established who was wrongly acquitted by the learned trial court which findings are, therefore, perverse and call for an interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are various contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the witnesses who are close relatives of the complainant and other persons had also reached the spot as per evidence but they were not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the statement of the complainant and her three relatives, in the absence of independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon. It was also submitted that if two views are possible from the evidence, the appeal against acquittal cannot be accepted until and unless there are observations of the court that those findings were perverse.