The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of essential elements of the offenses, inordinate delay in filing the FIR, and lack of corroboration for the complainant's statement can lead to acquittal.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2003, appellant Ragunath Singh @ Rana (for brevity 'the appellant) has preferred the instant appeal, by virtue of which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, two years, three years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- & two years, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 333, 353 and 354 Indian Penal Code respectively. In case of default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo RI for a period of two months in this relevant connection.

2. Tersely, the facts and evidence, unfolded during the trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present appeal and emanating from the record, are that, on 09.06.1999, complainant Lajpal Kaur (PW-3) was posted as LDC in the office of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the PSEB'), Udhanwal, whereas the appellant was employed as Clerk (at a distance of 10/15 Kms away) in the office of XEN of PSEB, Hargobindpur. The prosecution claimed that the appellant came to the office and sent a message to her to come outside, but she did not agree. Thereafter, the appellant again came to her office at noon time and asked her to talk with him, she refused. Thereafter, the appellant grappled with the complainant, slapped and torn her shirt. He gave injury with some knife like weapon, which landed on the wrist of her left hand. He gave a push to her. She felled on the ground, as a result of which, she received injuries on her back side of right shoulder, back and left arm. She raised noise, which attracted PWs Jaswant Singh, Joginder Singh ALMs and Janak Raj. After seeing them, the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. She went to her residence, from where, her husband Tirlok Singh took her to Civil Hospital, Batala, where she was medicolegally examined. On 11.06.1999, ASI Paramajit Singh (PW8) went to Civil Hospital, Batala and recorded her statement (Ex.PB), which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PB/2).

3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the appellant has voluntarily caused grievous hurt to her with intent to prevent and deter from discharge of her official duty as such public servant and torn her shirt. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of the statement of complainant-Lajpal Kaur (PW-3), the present case was registered against the appellant, vide FIR No.66 dated 11.06.1999 (Ex.PB/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 333, 353 and 354 IPC by the police of Police Station, Ghuman, District Gurdaspur, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the appellant.

Since the case was triable by the Court of Session, so, the case was committed for trial by the Magistrate, vide commitment order dated 22.09.1999.

5. After completion of all the codal formalities, the trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant to face the trial of the indicated offences, vide order dated 03.11.1999. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, examined PW1 Janak Singh son of Sohan Singh, who has stated that on 09.06.1999, he went to the office of the PSEB. He did not notice any person causing hurt to the complainant. Even he did not see the accused there. The statement of Jaswant Singh (PW-2) is also to that effect that he did not notice any occurrence. Tarlok Singh (PW4) husband of Lajpat Kaur (PW-3) is not an eye witness. He has only deposed that he took his wife to Civil Hospital, Batala, where, she was medico-legally examined.

7. Sequelly, the next to the notice of th