High Court will not interfere with acquittal unless patently perverse or ignores material evidence; unexplained FIR delay, testimonial contradictions, absent medical corroboration, and inadmissible similar fact evidence sustain acquittal as reasonable view.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.5.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. were ordered to be set aside. (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 police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It was asserted that the informant/victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) made a complaint asserting that she was coming to her home on 23.08.2008. The accused met her near Hatwar Bazar at about 7:45 P.M. The accused was intoxicated. He started teasing the informant. The victim protested, but the accused caught hold of her breasts and outraged her modesty. The informant bit the arm of the accused to save herself. During Scuffle a jeep stopped on the spot in which one person namely, Gogi was sitting. The accused ran away on seeing the jeep. The victim reported the matter to the President of Gram Panchayat, Hatwar, who advised her to report the matter to the police or the Court. The victim filed a complaint (Ex. PW1/A) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, which was sent to the police for investigation. F.I.R. (Ex. PW1/B) was registered in the police station. SI Tilak Chand (PW10) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (PW10/A). He recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Informant (PW1) narrated the incident. Sulekha Thakur (PW2) is the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat to whom a complaint was made. Ramesh Kumar (PW3) was travelling in the vehicle, and he rescued the victim. Ishwar Dass (PW4), Kirti Chand (PW5), Kishori Lal (PW6), Devi Ram (PW7) and Sudesh Kumar (PW8) did not support the prosecution’s case. Ram Dass (PW9) signed the F.IR. SI Tilak Chand (PW10) conducted the investigation. Anju Devi (PW11) proved that the accused had also molested her on an earlier occasion.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. stated that the victim deposed falsely against him as she had borrowed Rs.5000/-from him for the marriage of her daughter. He had filed a complaint against the Pardhan to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, and the witnesses deposed against him at the instance of the Pardhan. He tendered documents in his evi