STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nutshell, case of prosecution is that on 1.8.2006, at about 7.30 pm, complainant alongwith her sister Vipna Devi and mother Nirmala Devi was sitting in her courtyard. Respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') came on the spot and started hurling abuses at the complainant and her family members. When complainant inquired about the reason for hurling abuses, accused allegedly assaulted complainant and tried to pull the Salwar worn by the complainant and touched her with the intention to outrage her modesty.

(2.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this court to the evidence led on record by the prosecution vis-'-vis impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, vehemently argued that the learned Court below has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which, erroneous findings have come on record and accused has been let off on very flimsy grounds. While specifically inviting attention of this Court to the statements of PW-1 (complainant) , PW-2 Smt. Nirmala Devi (mother of complainant) and PW-3 Kumari Vipna Devi (sister of complainant) , learned Additional Advocate General contended that all the material prosecution witnesses categorically stated that on 1.8.2006, accused forcibly and unauthorisedly entered into courtyard of the house of the complainant and thereafter he made an attempt to outrage her modesty and as such, there was no occasion for the court below to acquit the accused. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the court below, while acquitting accused placed undue reliance upon the agreement Mark "X", suggestive of the fact that on 8.2006, some quarrel had taken place between mother of the complainant and mother of the accused, whereafter, on the intervention of the members of Gram Panchayat, matter was compromised. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General contended that even otherwise, compromise is dated 8.2006, whereas, incident pertains to 1.8.2006. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal being contrary to evidence available on record is not sustainable and accused deserves to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 294, 504 and 506 IPC.

(3.) Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing the accused, while refuting aforesaid contentions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that no case is made out against the accused, whose presence on the spot at the time of alleged offence itself is doubtful. Mr. Nitin Thakur further contended that even otherwise, bare perusal of depositions made by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 clearly suggests that there are material contradictions with regard to time of incident, as such, learned Court below rightly ignored the same, while acquitting the accused. Lastly, Mr. Nitin Thakur contended that there is no explanation available on record that what prevented the complainant from lodging report with the police at the first instance, because admittedly, complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC came to be filed on the next day.