Appellate interference with acquittal only if perverse, misreading evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible; unexplained FIR delay, witness contradictions, inconclusive medicals justify upholding acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred 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 victim (name withheld to protect her identity) made a statement to the police that she had gone to Sheel Naal for grazing her goats on 06.11.2008. She was sitting on the road at about 3:00 PM when Bunty came to the spot. He tried to tear her clothes. The victim resisted. A vehicle came to the spot, and the accused ran away after seeing the vehicle. Soon thereafter, Ramesh came to the spot and bit her cheeks. She shouted for help. Asha Devi (PW2) heard her cries, and she asked the accused to leave the victim. The victim ran away. The victim suffered injuries on her face, breast and stomach. The matter was reported to the police, and FIR (Ext.PW1/A) was registered in the police station. ASI Jawahar Singh (PW7) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW7/B). An application (Ext.PW7/A) was filed for medical examination of the victim. Dr D.K. Bhaglani (PW5) examined the victim and found that she had sustained multiple injuries. He referred the victim to the dental surgeon for expert opinion. Dr Kala (PW4) examined the victim and found that she had suffered a bite mark over the right zygomatic area. She issued the report (Ext.PW4/A). Dr D.K. Bhaglani found the nature of injuries to be simple. He issued the report (Ext.PW5/A). The victim produced the shirt (Ext.P1), which was worn by her at the time of the incident. It was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with a seal impression ‘H’. The seal impression ‘H’ (Ext. PW7/C) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the parcel was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to them, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354, read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. The victim (PW1) narrated the incident. Asha Devi (PW2) heard the cries of the victim. Nirja Devi (PW3) accompanied the victim to the Police Station. Dr Kala (PW4), Dental Surgeon, examined the victim. Dr D.K. Bhaglani (PW5) issued the MLC. Madan Kashyap (PW6) witnessed the recovery. ASI Jawahar Singh (PW7) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. They did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the FIR was lodged belatedly. The victim changed