Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Nirat Singh - Appellant
Versus
Sita Devi - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 315 of 2010
Decided On : 10-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 324, 323, 506, and 34 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused due to lack of corroborative evidence, delay in filing the complaint, and the unreliability of witness testimonies - The complainant's assertion of being assaulted was not supported by medical evidence and lacked credible witnesses from the vicinity, leading to reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. (Paras 7, 15, 19, 20, 28)
(B) Acquittal - Scope of appellate review - An appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity or misreading of evidence, and must respect the presumption of innocence. (Paras 13, 41)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that his family members assaulted him to coerce him into transferring property. Despite the complaint being filed 20 days post-incident, no medical evidence was presented to support the claims of injury. The learned Trial Court found the testimonies of witnesses unreliable and contradictory.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused due to reasonable doubt arising from the lack of corroborative evidence, the timing of the complaint, and the testimonies of witnesses being inconsistent.
Issues: The main issues were the credibility of witness testimonies, the delay in filing the complaint, and whether the learned Trial Court's acquittal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the acquittal should not be disturbed unless it is found to be perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, reaffirming the principle that the presumption of innocence remains intact.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - An appellate court can only overturn an acquittal if it is patently perverse or based on a misapprehension of evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can interfere only when no reasonable person could have acquitted based on the evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The court may reappreciate the evidence but must consider whether the trial court's view was a possible one on the evidence (!) (!) (!) . - Interference is warranted only if the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, misreading of material evidence, or only one unreasonable conclusion was possible (!) (!) (!) . - Delay in filing the complaint, without satisfactory explanation, can justify doubting the prosecution case (!) (!) (!) . - The evidence of chance witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, and their testimony may be discarded if their presence is doubtful or unexplained (!) (!) (!) . - Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of medical corroboration can lead to reasonable doubt and justify acquittal (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if another reasonable view consistent with innocence is possible (!) (!) . - The appeal is dismissed if the trial court's acquittal is based on a reasonable view of the evidence (!) . Records shall be sent back forthwith, and pending applications stand disposed of (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.03.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charged offences. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the complainant is an agriculturist and is residing at Village and Post Office Kotla, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. Accused No.1 is the wife of the complainant and accused No.2 and 3 are his sons. They reside in Village Hurla, Sub Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. Accused No.1 has inherited the property of her father in Village Hurla where she used to reside with accused No.2 and 3. The complainant is residing in Village Kotla. The accused came to the house of the complainant at Village Kotla on 8.7.2006 at 8.00 PM armed with sticks. They abused and threatened the complainant. They asked the complainant to transfer the property in their names. The complainant refused to do so. The accused gave him a beating with fist blows and sticks. The complainant shouted for help. Smt. Bhadri Devi, Baldev Singh, Tek Singh and Bali Ram reached the spot and rescued the complainant from the accused. The accused ran away from the spot. They threatened the complainant to kill him at a suitable time. The complainant sustained injuries on his head and body. He reported the matter to Police Station, Banjar but no action was taken by the police. Hence the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused.
3. The learned Trial Court recorded the preliminary evidence and found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. Statements of complainant Nirat Singh (PW1), Baldev Singh (PW2), Tek Singh (PW3) and Bali Ram (PW4) were recorded before framing the charges.
4. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The complainant Nirat Singh (PW1) was recalled for further examination after framing the charges.
6. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the case of the complainant in its entirety. They claimed that the witnesses deposed against them falsely. Initially, they stated that they wanted to lead defence evidence, however, no evidence was led subsequently.
7. Learned Trial Court held that the incident occurred on 8.7.2006 and the complaint was filed on 28.7.2006 after a gap of 20 days. The complainant explained that he had reported the matter to the police but there was no evidence in support of this fact. The delay in filing the complaint would make the case of the complainant suspect. The complainant stated that Bhadri Devi had reached the spot and rescued him from the accused. The statement of Bhadri Devi was not recorded. The complainant admitted that the village had around 80 houses but no person from the vicinity was examined to prove the complainant’s version. No medical evidence was brought on record to corroborate the complainant’s version. Bali Ram (PW4) was related to the complainant. He was residing seven kilometres away from the place of the incident. He was a chance witness and his presence was not satisfactorily established on the spot. The complainant and accused were inimical to each other and the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. The weapon of offence was not produced be
An appellate court can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or based on a misapprehension of evidence, respecting the presumption of innocence.
High Courts interfere with acquittal only if trial judgment perverse, misreads material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; double presumption favors upholding acquittal where two vie....
Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relat....
Appellate interference with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.
In appeals against acquittal, interference warranted only if trial court's judgment patently perverse, misreads evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible on record.
In criminal appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence strengthens upon acquittal, and appellate intervention is limited unless the trial court's judgment demonstrates illegality or irra....
In appeal against acquittal lacking reasons, re-appreciation permissible; no interference if Trial Court view sustainable despite evidentiary infirmities like hostile witnesses, FIR delay and absent ....
Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse or ignoring material evidence; trial court's reasonable view, considering double presumption of innocence, not disturbed despite co....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to reasonable doubts in witness credibility and the lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
In appeals against acquittal, interference only if perverse or no reasonable view supports acquittal; unexplained FIR delay, material improvements in victim's testimony, and lack of corroboration jus....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
