Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sewa Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.03 of 2010
Decided On : 24-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 201, 323, 506, read with Section 34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Revision petition against conviction - The petitioner was convicted by the Appellate Court for offences under IPC, which was challenged on grounds of lack of identification and evidence. The Trial Court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and lack of a test identification parade. The Appellate Court reversed this decision without establishing any perversity in the Trial Court's findings. (Paras 1, 6, 19, 26)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence - The principle that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and the appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn such a judgment. (Paras 25, 27)
Facts of the case:
The informant and his wife were attacked by the accused after a vehicle incident, leading to injuries to both the informant and his dog. The informant identified the accused, but the Trial Court found the evidence insufficient due to lack of corroboration and identification procedures.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court's reversal of the acquittal was improper as it did not demonstrate that the Trial Court's view was perverse.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court could overturn the acquittal without establishing a clear error in the Trial Court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Appellate Court must respect the presumption of innocence and the findings of the Trial Court unless a clear error is demonstrated.
Result: Revision petition allowed; the Appellate Court's judgment set aside, and the Trial Court's acquittal restored.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2009/10.11.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan (H.P.) (learned Appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed by the respondent- State against the judgment dated 23.01.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan (learned Trial Court) was allowed, and the petitioner No.1 (accused No.1 before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 201, 323 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and petitioners No. 2 to 4 (accused No. 2 to 4 before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 201, 323 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and the order dated 10.11.2009, vide which they were ordered to be released on probation for one year. (The 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 police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 323, 201 & 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant- Man Singh Chandel (PW5), and his wife Kamlesh Chandel (PW6), were walking on Brahman Beli Road at about 07:00 pm. A vehicle bearing registration No. CH-01-W-4586 came at high speed and attempted to crush the informant. The informant and his wife jumped towards the fields, however, the informant’s dog sustained injuries. The driver stopped the vehicle. The informant told the driver that he had almost killed his pet dog. The driver of the vehicle, along with other companions, came out and started beating the informant. They pushed him in a Khud. When the informant’s wife tried to rescue him, the accused persons also pushed her. The informant sustained injuries. The informant could identify the assailants as they were residing in the same area. The matter was reported to police by way of an application (Ex-PW5/A). An FIR (Ex-PW8/A) was registered at the police station. H.C. Prem Lal (PW7) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex-PW7/A). He seized the vehicle vide seizure memo (Ex-PW7/B). He filed an application for conducting the informant’s medical examination. Dr Bhupesh Gupta (PW4) conducted the medical examination of the informant and found that he had sustained simple injuries which could have been caused by fist blows. He issued the MLC (Ex-PW4/A). Prem Lal (PW7) also filed an application for conducting the medical examination of the dog. Subash (PW2) conducted the medical examination of the dog. He found that the dog had sustained injuries, which could have been caused by a motor vehicle accident. The mechanical examination of the vehicle was conducted by Shyam Lal (PW3), who found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. He issued a report (Ex-PW3/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned trial Court.
3. The learned trial Court put the notice of acquisition to accused No.1- Sewa Singh for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 279 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. The notice of acquisition was put to the other accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506, read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Gurpal Singh (PW1) did not support the prosecution case. Dr. Subash (PW2) medically examined the dog. Shyam Lal (PW3) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Dr. Bhupesh G
AI
The appellate court must demonstrate clear error or perversity in a trial court's acquittal to overturn it, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
In acquittal appeals, interference only if perverse or ignoring evidence; dock identification without prior TIP insufficient for unknown accused, combined with investigative lapses like unexplained a....
The appellate court upheld the acquittal due to serious flaws in the Test Identification Parade, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for clear evidence of guilt.
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds compelling reasons, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of reliable identification evidence.
Conviction under rash driving provisions set aside in revision for failure to prove driver's identity: no investigation explanation, no test identification parade, unreliable dock identification by p....
The appellate court held that identification of an accused in court is ineffective without prior identification procedures, and acquittals are upheld unless proven unjust.
Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
VERY In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., 1973 against an order of acquittal at the instance of informant, the court exercises only a limited jurisdiction and it should n....
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
