Acquittal in S.302 IPC Case Upheld by Himachal Pradesh High Court: Court Stresses High Bar for Reversing Acquittals, Cites Unreliable Extra-Judicial Confession & Motive - 2025-01-07

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Acquittal, Cites Dubious Confession and Weak Motive

Shimla , HP – The High Court of Himachal Pradesh , in a judgment dated January 7, 2025, has upheld the acquittal of Man Singh , who was accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh 's appeal against the 2013 decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba. The Court emphasized the high threshold for overturning an acquittal, particularly when the trial court's view is plausible, and found the prosecution's reliance on an alleged extra-judicial confession and motive to be unconvincing.

Case Background: A Death and a Disputed Confession

The case dates back to March 2, 2012, when Pawan (the deceased) was found dead. The prosecution alleged that Man Singh had murdered him. The State's case primarily rested on two pillars: an alleged extra-judicial confession made by Man Singh to his sister-in-law, Nirmala Devi (PW2), and a purported motive stemming from the accused’s suspicion that the deceased had an illicit relationship with his (accused’s) wife.

The trial court, in its judgment dated October 28, 2013, acquitted Man Singh , concluding that neither the extra-judicial confession nor the motive was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The State appealed this decision to the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Mr. J.S. Guleria , learned Deputy Advocate General for the State (Appellant) , argued that the trial court had improperly appreciated the evidence. He contended that the prosecution had presented direct and cogent evidence, including the accused's confession to Nirmala Devi (PW2), which was allegedly recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8), and that the motive of suspicion regarding an illicit affair was well-established.

Ms. Suman Thakur , learned counsel for Man Singh (Respondent/Accused) , countered that the trial court's decision was a reasonable one based on the evidence. She highlighted the unreliability of key prosecution witnesses, many of whom were related to the deceased or had strained relations with the accused. Crucially , she pointed out that the alleged audio recording of the confession was never produced in court, and the voice analysis report from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was also missing, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution.

High Court's Scrutiny: Upholding the Presumption of Innocence

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and the trial court's reasoning, extensively referencing Supreme Court jurisprudence on appeals against acquittal.

Standard for Appellate Intervention

The judgment reiterated established legal principles: * An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. * Appellate courts should not interfere if the trial court's view is plausible, even if another view is possible. * Intervention requires findings of illegality, perversity, or manifest error. The Court cited Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) : "A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity." It also referred to Sanjeev v. State of H.P. (2022) , which states that if two views are possible, the appellate court must be "extremely slow" in interfering.

Extra-Judicial Confession Deemed Unreliable

The Court found the alleged extra-judicial confession to Nirmala Devi (PW2) to be "inherently improbable."

* Credibility of PW2 : The Court noted discrepancies in timelines and the unlikelihood of the accused confiding in PW2, given her strained matrimonial relationship with the accused's brother. The judgment stated: "...the accused would consider her to be the last person to confide knowingly well that any confession made to her would prompt her to disclose it to the police because of the inimical relationship..." (Para 20).

* Missing Evidence : The alleged recording of this confession by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) was never produced. The Court observed: "the report of analysis [of the voice sample and recording sent to CBI] was not brought on record... Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution." (Para 22). The testimony of PW8, including his claim of visiting PW2 at 2:00 AM to record the call, was found "highly suspicious."

Confession in Police Custody Inadmissible

An alleged confession made by the accused to Karam Chand (PW9) while in police custody was deemed inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court cited Rajesh v. State of M.P. (2023) , reinforcing that confessions to police officers or in police custody (unless before a Magistrate) cannot be proved.

Motive Not Conclusively Established

The prosecution's theory of motive – that the accused suspected the deceased of an illicit affair with his wife – was also found wanting. * The testimony of Bago Devi (PW4, deceased’s wife) regarding a threat made by the accused a year prior was deemed unreliable as she never reported it. * Similarly, Durgo (PW7)'s claims were questioned due to her close relation to the informant and inaction. * Omi (PW5) testified that the accused suspected "everyone" of having illicit relations with his wife, which, according to the Court, diluted the specific motive against the deceased. The Court noted: "...it is not explained why the accused would pick up the deceased for murdering him." (Para 37).

Medical Evidence and Possibility of Accident

Dr. Navdeep Joshi (PW19), who conducted the post-mortem, stated that the deceased had consumed alcohol and died due to a head injury. Critically, he admitted in cross-examination that such injuries “could be sustained if a person falls from 200-300 meters in height under the influence of liquor.” (Para 39). This opened the possibility of an accidental death.

Final Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Concluding its analysis, the High Court found no compelling reasons to overturn the trial court's acquittal. The judgment stated: "There is no other evidence on record to show the involvement of the accused, and the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused. This Court will not interfere with the view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible..." (Para 40).

The appeal filed by the State was consequently dismissed. Man Singh was directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety, under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ensure his appearance before the Supreme Court if a Special Leave Petition is filed.