Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Meera Devi & Anr. - Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 66 of 2013
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ashok Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate.

Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable acquittal view possible; upheld trial court's reasonable findings on witness contradictions, medical non-corroboration, and lack of independents.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451, 323, 504 r/w 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313, 437-A - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate Court to interfere only if acquittal patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, and no reasonable view possible consistent with acquittal - Where two views possible, one supporting acquittal, no interference even if another view possible. (Paras 12, 13, 26)

(B) Prosecution case - Reliability - Contradictions in eyewitness testimonies on material particulars, exaggeration in version, lack of independent witnesses despite incident in village courtyard with nearby houses, medical evidence not corroborating dragging or hair pulling, unexplained simple injury on accused suggestive of scuffle - Defence of false implication due to enmity probable - Benefit of doubt to accused. (Paras 16-24)

Facts of the case:
Informant fetching firewood at grassland encountered accused consuming liquor who abused her father as terrorist and threw her bundle. Next day, accused entered house courtyard, assaulted informant by dragging hair, beating with stick; kicked her; injured her father on head. Family rescued her. Trial Court acquitted holding prosecution evidence unreliable due to contradictions, no independents. State appealed asserting medical corroboration and no basis for lack of independents.

Findings of Court:
Acquittal upheld; trial Court took reasonable view of contradictory testimonies not corroborated by medical or independents.

Issues: Whether trial Court erred in discarding prosecution evidence due to contradictions, exaggeration, absence of independent witnesses, and probable defence motive; scope of appellate interference in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Eyewitnesses contradicted on presence, family accompaniment, sequence, injuries; medical showed simple blunt injuries sans scalp/back marks from alleged dragging; no locals witnessed despite shouts in populated area; accused's injury unexplained; defence of false case to pressure over records plausible amid enmity - reasonable doubt not disproved beyond.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of alleged assault incident. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial proceedings and prosecution evidence overview. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. trial acquittal for unreliable evidence; state appeals. (Para 6 , 7)
4. parties argue on evidence appreciation and interference. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. informant's testimony exaggerated, medically uncorroborated. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. family witnesses contradict on material incident details. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. no independent witnesses; accused injury unexplained. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. uphold reasonable trial view; dismiss appeal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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 informant, Reeta Devi (PW1), had gone to her Ghasni (grassland) to bring fuel wood on 26.02.2010. Sanju, Om Parkash, etc., were consuming liquor. Informant’s father, Naseeb Singh, also came to the spot. The informant crossed Sanju and Om Parkash. They told her that she was the daughter of a terrorist. They threw the bundle of firewood, which was being carried by the informant. They also caught hold of Naseeb Singh. The informant reached the home and narrated the incident to Kala Devi (PW3), her mother-in-law. Kala Devi (PW3) went to the house of Om Parkash on 27.02.2010 to enquire about the incident. Om Parkash promised her to settle the matter. The informant was sitting on the lintel of her house on 28.02.2010 at about 5:30 PM. Meera Devi and her husband Om Parkash came to the courtyard of the informant’s house. Meera Devi went to the lintel and told the informant that she (Meera Devi) was Pradhan, and the informant had defamed her. She caught hold of the informant’s hair and dragged her to the courtyard. Meera Devi gave beatings to the informant by means of a stick. Om Prakash also kicked the informant. The informant shouted for help. Naseeb Singh and Vinod Kumar came to the spot, and they rescued the informant. The accused inflicted injury on the head of Naseeb Singh. The matter was reported to the police, and FIR (Ext.PW1/A) was registered in the Police Station. Anant Ram (PW6) investigated the matter. He filed an application for the medical examination of the informant and her father. Dr Suneet Verma (PW4) conducted their medical examination. He found that the informant had sustained simple injuries which could have been caused by means of a blunt weapon. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW4/A). He also issued the MLC of Naseeb Singh (Mark X). ASI Anant Ram (PW6) visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/A). Two sticks and one handle of a pickaxe (Ext.P1 to Ext.P3) were seized vide memo (Ext.PW3/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused persons. When the accused persons appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. Reeta Devi (PW1) is the informant. Vinod Kumar (PW2) is the husband, and Kala Devi (PW3) is the mother-in-law of the informant. Dr. Suneet Verma (PW4) conducted the medical examination