##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 194 of 2015 Reserved on: 08.10.2026 Date of Decision: 02.11.2026.

Punnu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidharth, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., Camp at Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2014 and order of sentence dated 08.08.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, HP (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving Hrise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant (name being withheld to protect her identity) had gone to the jungle to fetch grass on 01.12.2009. She was returning to her home with grass at about 09:30, when the accused called her, and the informant stopped. The accused told her to take ₹100/- and accompany him to the jungle. He caught hold of the informant’s hand. The informant shouted for help. Basant Ram (PW3) and his wife Barfi Devi (PW2) reached the spot. The accused ran away after seeing them. The informant narrated the incident to her husband at home. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ext.PW1/A). HC Veena Devi (PW5) investigated the matter. She visited the spot, prepared the site plan (Ext.PW5/A) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. Informant (PW1) narrated the incident. Barfi Devi (PW2) did not support the prosecution version. Basant Ram (PW3) came to the spot after hearing the informant’s cries. Mathru Ram (PW4)

signed the FIR. HC Veena Devi (PW5) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He claimed that the prosecution witnesses had falsely deposed against him and a false case was made against him. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the informant's testimony was duly corroborated by the testimonies of Basant Ram (PW3) and Barfi Devi (PW2). The informant had no reason to make a false statement against the accused. The act of the accused of offering ₹100/- to the informant, catching hold of her arm and asking her to accompany him to the jungle outraged the informant’s modesty. Therefore, learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the commuission of the aforesaid offence.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional Se