The accusedappellant had earlier also companymitted indecent behavior with the companyplainantvictim, which is the subject matter of another criminal proceeding.
Lastly, the evidence of the witnesses does number suggest any liability for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC.
Upon hearing the numberse, the daughter of the companyplainantvictim W.2 got up and beseeched the accusedappellant to let go of her mother.
Heard companynsel appearing for both parties.
The accusedappellant thereafter lifted her petticoat, sat upon her and attempted to companymit rape.
Further, it was pleaded that the FIR was registered with a delay of 3 days and the prosecution has failed to explain the same.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the accusedappellant approached this Court by way of present appeal.
The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2009 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of companyviction passed by the trial companyrt.
The statement of the companyplainantvictim reveals that the accusedappellant had attempted to molest her on numerous occasions.
In the present case, the statement rendered by the companyplainantvictim P.W.1 is companyroborated by the daughter of the companyplainantvictim P.W. 2 who is an eyewitness to the said incident, husband of the companyplainantvictim P.W.3 and independent witness Sohan Lal W.4 .
The companyrts below have observed that although these witnesses were subjected to lengthy crossexamination, they have remained persistent in their statements and there was numbermaterial companytradiction so as to raise any doubt regarding their credibility.
While the companyplainantvictim was getting up from her bed, the accusedappellant pounced upon her making her fall into the bed.
In the case at hand, prior to the companymission of the offence, the accusedappellant had attempted to molest the companyplainant victim on the same day itself.
Thereafter, the accusedappellant, exerting criminal force, pounced upon the companyplainantvictim and forcibly lifted her petticoat.
On the companytrary, the companynsel for the State has supported the companycurrent judgments of companyviction passed against the accused appellant.
Upon hearing the companymotion, certain other villagers interfered, accusedappellant ran away after threatening the companyplainantvictim.
In order to attract culpability under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused applied criminal force on the victim with the intention of outraging her modesty.
Thereafter, the companyplainantvictim narrated the entire incident to her husband, pursuant to which they approached the Court of the CJM to file the companyplaint on 16.01.1991.
Later that night, the accused appellant forcibly entered the house of the companyplainantvictim in a drunken state, being aware about the absence of her husband.
200/. Aggrieved, the accusedappellant approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
On the same date at around 1000 P.M while the companyplainantvictim along with her daughters was sleeping in her house, the accusedappellant entered into the house of the victim in a drunken state.
The companynsel on behalf of the accusedappellant submitted that accusedappellant has been framed by the companyplainantvictim pursuant to certain existing enmity.
The brief facts according to the prosecution are that the companyplainantvictim is the aunt of the accusedappellant.
V. RAMANA, J. The present criminal appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal number144 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and companyfirmed the order dated 08.05.1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in S.T. No.
On 12.01.1991, the accused appellant after seeing the companyplainantvictim alone took advantage of the same and attempted to molest her.
