STATE OF H.P. Vs. HEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10th August, 1999 passed in Criminal Case No. 33/2 of 1997 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ON a written complaint (Ext.PA) dated 9th October, 1996, an F.I.R. No.217 of 1996 (Ext.PB) under Sections 341, 323 and 506 I.P.C. was registered with Police Station Sadar, Nahan against the accused person. The complaint was filed by Sh.Dharambir (PW-2), husband of Smt. Rajesh Rani (PW-3) alleging that the accused intercepted PW-3 at in village, Surla , H.P. and not only used criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty but also assaulted her causing injury on her chest and knee. The Investigating Officer took into possession Danda (Ext.P-1) and the torn shirt (Ext.PJ). PW-3 was also medically examined at District Hospital, Nahan and her M.L.C. (Ext.PW- 1/A) was also taken by the Investigating Officer.

(3.) THE court below found that the case of the prosecution was not proved as no independent witness was associated by the Police during the investigation of the case and the material witnesses, namely, Dharambir (PW-2), husband of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and Hitender Kumar (PW-4) brother-in- law of PW-3 were interested witnesses and in their depositions they had not only contradicted themselves but had also contradicted each other . Other two witnesses, namely, Pratibha Sood (PW-1) is the doctor who has proved the injury on the person of the complainant and Bhadur Singh (PW-5) is the Investigating Officer .