No Advantage Can Be Derived From Victim’s Testimony: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man In 2008 Molestation Case

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of a man in molestation case, saying that no advantage can be derived from the victim’s testimony.

The Court was deciding an Appeal filed by the State against the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Appellate Court) vide which the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, were set aside.

A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “… no advantage can be derived from her testimony. … The prosecution’s version was full of material contradictions in the present case. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The testimony of the victim was contradicted on many aspects, and the learned Appellate Court was justified in doubting her testimony.”

The Bench said that the Appellate Court took a reasonable view which could have been taken on the evidence led in the case.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) Lokinder Kuthleria appeared on behalf of the Appellant/State while Advocate Digvijay Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Accused.

Factual Background

In 2008, the victim made a complaint asserting that she was coming to her home and the accused met her near Hatwar Bazar in the evening. He was allegedly intoxicated and started teasing the victim. It was alleged that the victim protested, but the accused caught hold of her breasts and outraged her modesty. The victim allegedly bit the arm of the accused to save herself and during scuffle, a jeep stopped on the spot in which one person was sitting.

The accused ran away on seeing the jeep and then the victim reported the matter to the President of Gram Panchayat, who advised her to report the matter to the police or the Court. Hence, she filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and the accused was summoned thereafter. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The accused challenged his conviction and the Appellate Court set aside the same. Therefore, the State approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The informant admitted that she had an inimical relationship with the accused, and she was not on talking terms with the accused. Hence, her testimony was required to be seen with due care and caution, especially in view of the delay in reporting the matter to the police.”

The Court, therefore, concluded that it will not interfere with the reasonable view of the Appellate Court while acquitting the accused, even if another view is possible.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.

Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:31291)

Click here to read/download the Judgment