In criminal appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence strengthens upon acquittal, and appellate intervention is limited unless the trial court's judgment demonstrates illegality or irrationality.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.11.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 354, 323, 427 & 506 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 354, 323, 427 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant (the name being withheld to protect her identity), her sons and her husband were travelling in an Alto car bearing registration No. HP16-1982 being driven by the informant’s sons. The informant’s husband had undergone an operation in the Sanjeevni Nursing Home at Solan, H.P. for the removal of a Gallbladder stone and Hernia. When they reached at village Mashobra (Nohra) at about 9:00 p.m. an Indica Car was parked in the middle of the road. Its registration plate was covered with cloth. There was insufficient space to enable the other vehicle to cross. The informant thought that Indica car was defective; hence, they stopped their car behind the Indica car. Accused Ramesh and Satish came out of the Indica car. They were intoxicated. They went towards the informant’s car. Accused Ramesh dragged the informant’s son from the driving seat and pushed him towards the gorge. Accused Satish caught the informant’s breast and tried to drag her out of the vehicle. Her shirt was torn in the incident. They (accused) could not see the informant’s husband and son sitting in the rear seat of the vehicle but when they started shouting, the accused became aware of their presence. The informant’s husband came out of the vehicle and tried to intervene but the accused pushed him. They also gave beatings to the informant’s son. Lucky reached the spot after hearing the cries. A vehicle also reached on the spot in which Shyam Lal (PW-2) and Sushil Kumar (PW-3) were sitting. They tried to intervene but they were also beaten by the accused persons. The accused person damaged the windscreen of the Alto car with a stone. They threatened to kill the informant party and told that they were saved by other persons but they would not be saved on the next occasion. Informant’s husband started feeling pain and he was taken to the hospital. The matter could not be reported on the same day and it was reported on 29.09.2007. An F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered at the police station. ASI Shiv Ram (PW-6) conducted the investigation. He asked the photographer to take photographs of the damaged windscreen. R.D. Prashhar (PW-5) took the photographs (Ext. PX-1 and PX-2). ASI Shiv Ram (PW-6) went to the spot on 02.10.2007 and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-6/A). The informant produced her shirt (Ext.P-1) and Bra (Ext.P-2), which were put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘D’. These were seized vide seizure memo (Ext.PW-1/B). The seal impression (Ext. PW-6/B) was taken on a separate piece of cloth and the seal was handed over to witness Sham Lal after its use. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. The c