STATE OF H.P. Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgement of acquittal, dated 21.11.1997, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Mandi, in case No. 36/II of 1997 in FIR No. 128/95, under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC.

(2.) THE allegations against respondent Sher Singh are that on 9.7.1995, PW 2 complainant was returning to her home at about 4 P.M., the respondent intercepted her and pressed her breasts with an intention to outrage her modesty. On raising alarm by the complainant, Khub Ram and Maya Ram came there and respondent fled away from the spot. The matter was reported to the police and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? after conclusion of the investigation, challan was put up against the respondent and he was charged, under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. PW 1 Dr. Ram Nath has stated that he medically examined the complainant on 10.7.1995 at 8.55 A.M. and found seven scratches on her chest/ sternum. In cross examination, he has stated that such injuries are possible by falling on bushes. PW 2 is the complainant, who has stated that on 9.7.1995, at 4 P.M. she was returning to her home, the respondent stopped her and caught hold her from her breasts. She raised alarm and on hearing her cries, Khub Ram and Maya Ram came there and respondent ran away from the spot. In the process, her shirt was torn. She suffered abrasions on her breasts. The respondent threatened her with dire consequences. In cross-examination, she has stated that at that time Sunder Singh was accompanying the accused-respondent. She has admitted that while reporting the matter she did not disclose the name of Sunder Singh. The accused-respondent caught hold her for about half an hour. She denied the suggestion that Maya Ram and Khub Ram worked with her husband. She has stated that she was not aware whether accused- respondent lodged a report against her husband. She denied that because of enmity with the accused- respondent he has been implicated in a false case.