The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence and prompt reporting of incidents in criminal cases, and the impact of these factors on the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., through, its verdict drawn upon Criminal Case No. 82/2 of 2006, made a verdict of conviction against the accused, for, charges drawn under Section 354, and, under Section 341 of the IPC, and, he also proceeded to impose consequent therewith sentences of imprisonment and of fine, upon, the accused.

2. The convict/accused, upon, becoming aggrieved, proceeded to prefer Criminal Appeal No. 11-S/10 of 2008, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the latter made thereon a verdict of acquittal.

3. The state of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved, and, has proceed to strive, to, annul the verdict of acquittal recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, through its casting the extant appeal before this Court.

4. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the extant appeal are that the mother of the prosecutrix one Mangla Devi lodged a complaint with the police on 11.7.2006 to the effect, that on 4.7.2006 when her daughters were returning home from school, the accused near Radhodhar teased her daughters and tried to out rage their modesty. The matter was reported to the police. The police during the course of investigation found that the accused had sexually abused and out raged the modesty of the prosecutrix, i.e. daughter of the complainant. This incident took place on 4.7.2006, when the prosecutrix along with her sisters namely, Poonam, Chanderkanta, and, Pooja were returning home at about 4.30 p.m., and, were near Radhodhar. As per the complainant, the accused made the prosecutrix sit in the jungle, and, indulged in sexual activity, thereby out raging the modesty of the prosecutrix. On seeing the sisters of the prosecutrix, the accused fled away from the spot.

5. The genesis of the prosecution case, is carried in Ex.PW6/A, exhibit whereof, is the FIR, recorded with respect to the prosecution case. It has been recorded at the instance of one Mangla Devi. The date of reporting of the incident is echoed therein to be 11.07.2006. The informant, Mangla Devi, stepped into the witness box as PW-1, and, proved the contents of Ex.PW1/A. However, PW-1 was not available at the site of occurrence. She has reported the matter to the police through a writing drawn in Ex.PW1/A, in pursuance whereof, FIR, borne in Ex.PW6/A was registered on 11.07.2006 in the Police Station concerned. Consequently, this Court would not assign much credibility to the testification of PW-1, given hers receiving information from PW-2, the victim of the charged offences. Obviously, hence this Court is bound to analyse the deposition of the victim, and, also the deposition of her sisters, who at the relevant time, were accompanying her, and, who are stated to be walking behind the accused, and, the victim.

6. Though, PW-2, the victim, as also one amongst her sisters, one Poonam Thakur, who at the relevant time was accompanying her, after school hours, in the evening of the day concerned,, for theirs hence together proceeding home, both testified, that when she had walked for some distance ahead of her sisters, rather the accused, on seizing an opportunity, perpetrated the charged penal misdemeanors, upon her. However, neither PW-2, the victim, nor amongst one of her sisters, who were accompanying her at the relevant time, inasmuch, as, one Poonam Thakur, and, who stepped into the witness box, as PW-3, has deposed with specificity the inter se distance, inter se the victim and her sisters, from the site of occurrence, whereat she was nabbed by the accused. For lack of afore articulations respectively by PW-2, and, by PW-3, with respect to the afore, this Court draws a conclusion that the distance inter se PW-2, and, her sisters, one of whom stepped into the witness box as PW-3, was not immense, and, that the victim through raising shrieks and outcries, for therethroughs evincing her unwillingness, to the perpetration of the charged misdemeanors, upon, her, and, also