LAWS(HPH)-2007-6-22

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

Decided On June 28, 2007
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
SUBHASH CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State has been directed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate whereby the respondent, who had been sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 506 IPC, has been acquitted.

(2.) PROSECUTION 's version, as per evidence on record, is like this. Prosecutrix's husband has his shop in a village. On 27.1.1997 around 12 in the noon when the prosecutrix was all alone in the shop, the respondent went there and caught hold of her by her arm and tried to forcibly take her to the adjoining room where the prosecutrix and her husband have their residence, with bad intention. When the prosecutrix put up resistance she was given a push, as a result of which she fell. She was carrying pregnancy of six months at that time. As a result of the push given by the respondent, resulting in her fall, the prosecutrix started bleeding per vagina. It became a case of threatened abortion. Prosecutrix raised hue and cry for being saved. On hearing her cries, a lady from the neighbourhood, named Kamla Devi, reached. She saw the respondent manhandling the prosecutrix. In the meanwhile, husband of the prosecutrix also reached. He too saw the respondent scuffling with the prosecutrix. Matter was reported to the Pradhan of the Panchayat in the evening on that very day. Pradhan put his endorsement on the writing on 28.1.1997, thereby forwarding it to the SHO. Police investigated the case. Pieces of some broken bangles of the prosecutrix were found on the spot, which were taken into possession. The prosecutrix also produced her jumper (a sort of short shirt worn by the ladies), which allegedly got torn in the course of scuffle.

(3.) TRIAL court has appraised the evidence in the light of the aforesaid defence plea of the respondent and come to the conclusion that certain contradictions and infirmities appearing in prosecution evidence as also the improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband probablize the defence plea.