The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2009 and order of sentence dated 20.8.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The 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 revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant (name being withheld to protect her identity) was grazing her cattle on 3.7.2006. Accused Puran Chand came to the spot and caught hold of her breasts. He tried to break the drawstring of her salwar and threatened her. He told her to agree to his demand, or he would throw her into the gorge. The informant shouted for help, and Leelawati (PW3) enquired as to what the accused was trying to do. The accused left the informant, and the informant ran towards the Leelawati. The accused followed her, and the informant pelted stones towards the accused. The accused went away from the spot. The informant narrated the incident to her husband, who advised her to report the matter to the police. The informant and her husband went to the Police Post, Mashobra, where an entry (Ex.PW4/A) was made, which was sent to the Police Station, where an FIR (Ex.PW4/B) was registered. ASI Hukam Singh (PW7) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/A). He found the broken pieces of bangles lying on the spot. He picked them up and put them in a cloth parcel. He sealed the parcel with seal ‘H’. He obtained the sample seal (Ex.PW7/B) on a separate piece of cloth and seized the parcel vide memo (Ex.PW1/A). Dr Lalita Negi (PW6) examined the victim and found deep tenderness over both breasts. The nature of the injury was simple, which could have been caused by a blunt weapon within 48 hours of the examination. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW6/B). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, the learned Trial Court charged him with the commission of offences punishable under Section 354 and 323 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. Informant (PW1) narrated the incident. Her husband (PW2) accompanied her to the Police Post. Leelawati (PW3) is an eyewitness. SHO Vijay Kumar (PW4) signed the FIR. Constable Ranjeet Singh (PW5) proved the entry in the daily diary. Dr Lalita Negi (PW6) medically examined the informant. ASI Hukam Singh (PW7) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He stated that a false case was made against him due to enmity over the land. The informant’s husband is a politically influential person, and he used his influence to falsely implicate him. The accused did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the informant’s statement was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the statement of Leelawati. The defence version that a false case was made against the accused over the land dispute was not believable; hence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-

Both the