STATE OF H.P. Vs. KULLA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 15.3.2007, at about 9:00pm, when complainant, her father in law, mother in law and son Abhimanyu, after taking dinner, were also sleeping in separate rooms of their house, somebody knocked the door of the room of the complainant continuously by entering into her court yard. Complainant repeatedly asked that who is knocking the door, but since she received no reply, she opened the room, whereafter accused all of a sudden entered into her room and caught hold of her (chhaati se chipak gaya) with an intention to outrage her modesty. Complainant managed to push the accused and thereafter, picked up a danda and gave three blows of the same to the accused, whereafter accused started calling the complainant as Bhabhi. Complainant identified the accused with the help of a torch and came out of the room. In the meantime, her father in law, mother in law and her son also came to the spot. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR Ext.PW1/A came to be lodged against the respondent-accused. Police after completion of investigation presented challan in the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the respondent-accused, charged him for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under aforesaid provisions of law and accordingly, acquitted him vide judgment dated 23.1.2009. In the aforesaid backdrop, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondent-accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below because bare perusal of the same, nowhere compels this Court to agree with contention of Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General that court below while ascertaining the guilt of the accused, has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused had entered the room of the complainant and thereafter, made an attempt to outrage her modesty. Interestingly, in the case at hand, prosecution despite there being availability of independent witnesses in abundance failed to associate the same and as such, learned court below rightly put not much reliance upon the statements of material prosecution witnesses, who are closely related to each other.