STATE OF H.P Vs. BEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried for the offences under Sections 452 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly trespassing into the house of the complainant and molesting her.

(2.) THE respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal code by the learned trial court but convicted and sentenced under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a default clause.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the instant appeal. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State argued with vehemence that the learned Appellate Court failed to view the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and at the same time has set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent evidence of the prosecutrix. Shri Guleria also took me through the evidence on record and argued that the learned appellate Court has wrongly brushed -aside the cogent material on record, which concludes that the statement of the prosecutrix was worth inspiring confidence.