Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Dr. Nishi Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Ashok Sharma and Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 464 of 2011
Decided On : 31-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Delay in FIR - Unexplained delay by educated independent woman weakens prosecution; prompt FIR rules out deliberation; contradictions in version, defence evidence of absence create doubt entitling benefit to accused. (Paras 31-38)
Facts of the case:
Complainant alleged during surprise inspection at health centre, superior officer lured for transfer cancellation, touched shoulder inappropriately, chased and seized registers insisting visit to superior office. Eyewitnesses claimed saw chase and weeping but not touch. Defence showed dispensary locked, peon summoned to open, photos clicked proving absence, false case due to absent report and disciplinary notice.
Findings of Court:
Trial court acquittal upheld as possible view; no perversity; prosecution story suspicious due to delay, contradictions, defence evidence.
Issues: Whether trial court acquittal perverse ignoring complainant natural version, mishandling eyewitness, photos, attendance issues, school programme proof, FIR delay explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: Trial court rightly discarded delayed FIR explanation as afterthought; photos and witness admission of opening lock create doubt on presence; contradictions, voluntary leave entries undermine story; no interference absent perversity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant :Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Arshita Sharma, Adv., Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advs. General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial history of ipc 354/509 complaint and acquittal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. appellant challenges trial court's evidence assessment (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. conflicting witness evidence on incident presence (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. appellate interference only if trial findings perverse (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. delay and contradictions justify upholding acquittal (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. appeal dismissed; trial judgment affirmed (Para 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Appellant-Dr. Nishi Sharma has filed the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).
2. By way of judgment, dated 26th September, 2011, the learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint, filed, under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), by petitioner-Dr. Nishi Sharma against respondent-Dr. Ashok Sharma.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis, shall hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:
4.1. Complaiant-Dr. Nishi Sharma lodged a report, with the police, disclosing therein, that she is posted as Medical Officer, for the last three years and has recently been transferred from Andretta to Lahtekri, Chamba.
4.2. According to the complainant, on 14th March, 2008, at about 09.30 a.m., she was on her duty at Health Centre. At that time, one Urmila Devi, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was also there, who had come to get medicines. One Shakuntla Devi is also stated to be present there. Then Dr. Ashok Sharma, OSD, Health Centre, came there for surprise inspection and by giving signal, by hand, he has directed her to come out of the room, upon which, the complainant came out of the room. When, she came out of the room, Dr. Ashok Sharma allegedly told her that Dr. Nishi, number of days have passed, but, you have not come to Shimla. She has been allured by saying that come to him at Shimla, he will get her transfer cancelled and with the bad intention, touched her shoulder with his hand and started doing obscene acts. On this, the complainant, at once, returned to her room and Dr. Ashok Sharma, OSD, also chased her and taken away the attendance registered and dispatch register, in which, the complainant has not marked her presence, upon which, the complainant requested him to return the registered, but, said Dr. Ashok Sharma, with bad intention, had stated to her that she has to come to Shimla and I will see how you will not come there.
4.3. She has also stated that Ashok Sharma, with bad intention, has done obscene acts with her and after showing his status of OSD, he has outraged her modesty.
4.4. Lastly, she has stated that yesterday, she has tried to contact her father and brothers, but, could not contact, as such, she could not lodge the report, on that day.
5. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case FIR No. 69 of 2008, under Sections 354 and 509 IPC, with Police Station Palampur. Thereafter, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the cancellation report, as, no offence was found against the accused.
6. After perusing the said cancellation report, the learned trial Court has issued the notice to the complainant. On 3rd October, 2009, the complainant put appearance before the learned trial Court and deposed that she is not satisfied with the investigation of the police and wants to contest the case. Consequently, the case was ordered to be tried as private complaint and the complainant was directed to adduce preliminary evidence. Conseque
