DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred as to as the `accused).

2. On the allegation that the respondent had sexually ravished PW- 1 and had outraged the modesty of not only P W- 1, but of several other girl students of the school where the respondent was a teacher, law was set in motion. The respondent was further charged for commission of offences relating to threatening the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident to somebody else. The accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 37 6 , 35 4 and 50 6 of the Indian Pen al Code, 18 6 0 (in short the I PC).

3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh found the accused guilty of all the offences, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, six months and six months respectively. In appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and directed acquittal of the respondent.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the reasons indicated by the High Court are indefensible. The High Court has treated dela