The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, especially in cases involving allegations of a criminal offense.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 CrPC, challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 29.4.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., in Case No. 106-II/2012, whereby respondent-accused came to be acquitted of charge framed against him punishable under Section 354 IPC.

2. Necessary facts as emerge from the record are that on 26.5.2012, complainant/prosecutrix got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC (Ext.PW6/A) stating therein that she cooks food at Government Primary School Bhatawa, whereas her husband works in a jeweler shop at Bhiwani, Haryana. Prosecutrix further alleged that on 23.5.2012, at about 9:30 pm, she was watching TV, while her children had gone to sleep after having meals and when she went out behind the house for urination, respondent-accused (Rajeev @ Deenu) suddenly came there and caught hold of her with bad intention. Prosecutrix pushed the accused and shouted for help, but nobody came at the spot. On 24.5.2012, complainant-prosecutrix made an application to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and Ward Panch. Complainant also averred in the complaint that she also informed her husband telephonically. On 25.5.2012, Pradhan Gram Panchayat and Ward Panch visited her house but they could not come to any conclusion. The complainant reported the matter to police on 26.5.2012, when her husband came back to home. On the basis of aforesaid complaint/report recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.PC, formal FIR Ext.PW7/B, came to be registered under Section 354 of the IPC, against the respondent-accused. After completion of investigation, police presented before the Court below.

3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., after being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the respondent-accused framed charge against the respondent accused under Section 354 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, however fact remains that he did no lead any evidence in support of his defence. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent-accused of charge framed against him under Section 354 IPC. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court against the acquittal recorded by the court below, by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondent-accused after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by the court below.

4. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below, strenuously argued that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that bare perusal of impugned judgment clearly suggests that learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which erroneous findings have come on record and respondent-accused has been acquitted on very flimsy grounds. To substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Chauhan, made this Court to travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution to demonstrate that prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent-accused made an attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, who at that relevant time was alone in her house. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that version put forth by the complaint could not be brushed aside by the court below solely on the ground that no independent witness was associated. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that if the statement given by the complainant is read in its entirety, it is sufficient to conclude that accused committed offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan, contended that impugned judgment passe