The police investigated into the said companyplaint and submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code .
Both PW1 and PW2 stated that the house of the accused was at a distance of 15 16 houses from the house of Prakashi Devi that the accused had never companye into their house earlier that their family and the accused were number on visiting terms with each other even during functions, marriages or death, though they were on visiting terms with others in the village.
PC and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/ in default thereof simple imprisonment for one month.
It was elicited in her cross examination that the accused did number go towards her mother in law number say anything to her mother in law that she used to companye to the village where her in laws were residing, only when her husband came home and that the house of her father in law was surrounded by the houses of his brothers and their sons.
The learned Magistrate by judgment dated 2.2.2001, held the accused guilty of offences under sections 452 and 354 Cr.
PW 2 also stated that she did number know the particulars of the dispute between the accused and her in laws.
In her cross examination, Prakashi Devi stated that she has five sons that only her husband and one son named Mahavir were staying with her that the other four sons were married and were number staying with her that on that night, her husband was away in the fields and her son Mahavir was also number present in the house.
Secondly on the same date, time and place, you assaulted and used criminal force against abovenamed Prakashi Devi with intent to outrage her modesty and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 354 IPC and within my companynizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the above said charge by this companyrt.
Prakashi Devi, and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 452 IPC within my companynizance.
Prakashi Devi was examined as PW 1.
The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the Addl.
The accused examined a witness Ex Sarpanch of the village as DW 1 and he stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and companyplainants son Surinder about a water companyrse and subsequently he came to know that the quarrel was companyverted into a false case against the accused by registering a false allegation that the accused had outraged the modesty of a woman.
On that basis, the following charge was framed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karnal, against the appellant That on 23.3.1996, after having made preparation for causing hurt or assault, you companymitted house trespass into the house of Smt.
She reiterated what was recorded in the FIR, that the appellant came into the house around 11.30 PM and broke the bulbs, that he came again around 00.30 AM and touched her daughter in law Sheela Devi and when her daughter in law woke up and raised an alarm, the appellant ran away.
The investigating officer was examined as PW 3.
She stated that on the night of 22/23.3.1996, while she and her daughter in law Sheela Devi were sleeping in her house, around 11.30 PM, the appellant jumped over the front wall of her house and broke the bulbs and ran away that at that time, numbermale member was present in the house except the children that around 00.30 AM the appellant again came into her house and touched her daughter in law Sheela Devi who woke up and raised an alarm and that the appellant immediately ran away.
emphasis supplied When the said charged was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded number guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.
An FIR was registered on 23.3.1996 on the statement of one Prakashi Devi.
V. RAVEENDRAN J., Leave granted.
