Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Petitioner
Versus
Mohan Lal - Respondent
Cr. Revision No.436 of 2015
Decided On : 16-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr Karan Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent acquittal absent perversity; tutored child witness admitting coaching on core penetration fact unreliable without specific corroboration.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 377 - Alleged unnatural offence on 6-year-old victim - Child witness resiled, admitted in cross-examination tutoring by father on core fact of anal penetration - Tutored testimony unreliable, requires careful evaluation and corroboration - Medical evidence: perianal abrasion possibly caused by finger scratching; human blood on victim’s undergarment; accused medically potent but no penile injury or blood - Enmity motive for false implication established through civil litigation and disputes - Trial court acquitted; appellate court upheld; no perversity warranting revisional interference. (Paras 6, 18-26)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 - Revisional jurisdiction supervisory, not appellate - Limited to correcting patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or perversity - Cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute views absent gross illegality, ignored material, or unreasonableness - Concurrent acquittals not to be disturbed on mere possibility of another view. (Paras 13-17)

Facts of the case:
Victim’s father alleged accused took 6-year-old son to orchard, removed undergarment, and committed anal penetration causing bleeding and crying. Incident narrated to father, ward member, panchayat head; FIR lodged. Investigation revealed enmity via partition suit and refusal to store cement. Medical exams conducted; case property analysis showed blood on victim’s undergarment.

Findings of Court:
Victim’s tutored testimony rejected; medical evidence non-corroborative; hearsay witnesses dependent on unreliable primary evidence; prosecution case doubtful due to enmity - Lower courts’ acquittal judgments affirmed.

Issues: Reliability of tutored child witness; effect of enmity on prosecution credibility; adequacy of medical corroboration; scope of revisional court to interfere with concurrent acquittals.

Ratio Decidendi: Child witness admitting tutoring on incident’s core is unreliable; abrasion non-specific to penetration; absence of accused’s injury weakens case; revisional court bound by narrow scope, cannot reassess facts without perversity per Supreme Court precedents.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of child sexual assault allegation (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial proceedings and prosecution witnesses (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. lower courts acquitted due to tutoring (Para 6)
4. parties contend on evidence appreciation (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
5. limited revisional jurisdiction bars re-appreciation (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. tutored child witness testimony unreliable (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. enmity and medical evidence weaken prosecution (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. revision dismissed upholding acquittal (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.03.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Circuit Court at Nurpur) (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment dated 25.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (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 petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the victim is the informant’s son. The victim was aged 6 years and was studying in class two. The informant left his home to purchase medicine for his wife on 11.06.2009. He returned to his home and found that his sons were not present. He searched for them. The victim met him on the way, and he was crying. The informant asked the victim about the reason for crying, and he replied that the accused had taken him to a mango orchard and had sexually penetrated his anus. The informant asked the accused as to why he had done so. The accused assaulted the informant. The informant narrated the incident to the Ward Punch, Ram Lal (PW-1). He also narrated the incident to Pardhan, Sat Pal(PW-6), who expressed his inability to do anything in the matter. The informant went to the police station and reported the matter to the police. The police registered the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-2/A). Inspector/SHO Kamljeet Singh (PW-11) filed an application (Ext.PW-11/A) for medical examination of the victim. Dr Shiv Darshan Singh (PW-12) examined the victim and found abrasion marks in the perianal region. He sealed the victim’s knickers and handed it over to the police official accompanying the victim. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW-12/A). Inspector/SHO Kamaljeet (PW-11) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-11/B). He arrested the accused and filed an application (Ext.PW-11/D) for medical examination of the accused. Dr Ashutosh Joshi (PW-5) examined the accused and found that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He issued the report (Ext. PW-5/A). He preserved the pants of the accused, sealed it in a parcel and handed over the parcel to the police official accompanying the accused. The case property was sent to SFSL, Junga, and the result (Ext.PA) was issued, stating that human blood was found on the victim’s knickers. Suresh Kumar (PW-4) issued an age certificate (Ext.PW-4/A) of the accused. Inspector/SHO Kamaljeet Singh (PW-11) filed an application (Ext.PW-11/E) for obtaining the birth certificate of the victim. Raj Kumar (PW-7) issued the birth certificate (Ext.PW-7/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after completion of the investigation, the challan was was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case.