STATE OF H P Vs. HARI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. In the instant appeal, the state has the acquittal of the respondents in a case punishable under sections 452, 354, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(2.) IN brief the prosecution is that the complainant Naina Devi was living alone in her 27th house. On February, 1998, after taking the meals, she went to her room and slept there. During the night she heard some knock on the door, on being asking he disclosed his name as Pappu, who happened to be her nephew. She opened the door and switched on the light. The respondent Hari Dass @ Pappu Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. entered inside her room, thereafter he bolted the door. On being asked as to what he was doing. On this he told that he had come to outrage her modesty. The co respondent Pyare Lal at that time was allegedly sitting her house. It is alleged that respondent Hari Dass embraced her and tore off her shirt. The string of her salwar was also opened and she was pushed on the cot. Though she has raised the alarm but no one came for rescue being a lonely place, then she picked up a darat to protect her- self but it was snatched by respondent Hari Dass and he threatened to kill her but thereafter he fled away but while running he bolted the door from the outside. The complainant, in the morning requested Kanta Devi PW2 to unbolt the door of her room and disclosed the entire episode of the last night to her. Thereafter, she went to the police station and lodged the report Ex.PW4/A which culminated into the FIR PW6/E.

(3.) ON the above story the learned trial court found a prima-facie case against the respondent under the aforesaid sections, accordingly they were charge sheeted. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses but at the end of the trial, both the respondents were acquitted. The learned Additional advocate General has argued that the testimony of the complainant was enough to sustain the conviction of the respondents but the learned trial court did not appreciate it in its right perspective.