Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Onkar Chand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 330 of 2015
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ankur Dass Sood, Advocate.

Appellate interference in acquittal appeals limited to perverse judgments ignoring evidence where only guilt view possible; unexplained FIR delay, unreliable interested witnesses justify upholding trial court's reasonable acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 378 and 386 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court interference limited to cases where trial court judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable views possible except guilt - Double presumption of innocence post-acquittal reinforces non-interference if two reasonable views possible - Trial court must address reasons for acquittal before reversal. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) First Information Report - Delay of nearly one day unexplained despite claims of prior police visits - Leads to embellishment, concoction; requires external checks and satisfactory explanation - Absence corrodes prosecution credibility. (Paras 15-19)

(C) Prosecution evidence - Interested/inimical witnesses not named in initial report, inconsistent sequences, lack of medical examination or physical evidence - Star witness turns hostile - Adverse inference from unexamined named witness - Justifies doubt and acquittal. (Paras 20-30)

Facts of the case:
Informant allegedly caught by collar, dragged, threatened and abused in caste name at shop during evening. Incident purportedly witnessed by two; reported to police next afternoon, nearly 22 hours later, distance 4 km. Prosecution examined victim, two eyewitnesses (one hostile), investigators; accused denied implication. Trial court acquitted citing delay, doubtful testimonies, inconsistencies, absent caste proof notification initially noted.

Findings of Court:
Trial court took reasonable view based on evidence; no perversity warranting interference.

Issues: Whether unexplained delay vitiates case; reliability of interested/unmentioned witnesses; sufficiency of uncorroborated victim testimony amid enmity; propriety of acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained FIR delay, non-corroborative/inconsistent/partial testimonies from related/inimical witnesses, hostile key witness, absent medical/physical proof, unexamined named witness justify doubting prosecution - Appellate court upholds reasonable acquittal view even if alternative possible.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. trial court acquitted on doubtful evidence and delay (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. state urges reversal; accused defends reasonable acquittal (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. unexplained fir delay undermines prosecution credibility (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. inconsistent interested witnesses need corroboration in enmity cases (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. appeal dismissed upholding trial court acquittal (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.2015, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was 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 police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 352 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act). It was asserted that the informant, Gulab Dass, was present in the shop of Ravi Dutt to buy some articles on 23.8.2010, at about 5.45 PM. The accused Omkar Soni came to the shop and caught the informant by his neck. He told the informant that he (the informant) had made a complaint regarding the sale of water. The informant asked the accused to leave his neck and told him that he had not made any complaint. The accused threatened the informant and abused him in the name of his caste. The incident was witnessed by Ravi Dutt and Prakash Chand. The informant reported the matter to the police. An FIR (Ex.PW1/A) was registered. Sanjay Sharma (PW7) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the spot map (Ex.PW7/A). He filed the applications (Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW4/A) and obtained the pedigree table of the accused (Ex.PW7/D) and the informant (Ex.PW4/B) from Halqua Patwari. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, a challan 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, the learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC&ST Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Gulab Dass (PW1) is the informant/victim. Thakur Dass (PW2), Rattan Lal (PW3) and Ravi Dutt (PW6) are the eyewitnesses. Basu Dev (PW4) prepared the informant’s pedigree table. Subhash Chand (PW5) prepared the pedigree table of the accused. Sanjay Sharma (PW7) investigated the matter. SI Ram Dass (PW8) partly investigated the matter. SI Ludar Chand (PW9) signed the FIR.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that he was falsely implicated. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the incident occurred on 23.8.2010 at 5.45 PM and the matter was reported to the police on 24.8.2010 at 3.45 PM. The informant stated that he had gone to the Police Station, but his report was not registered. This explanation was not proved. The presence of Thakur Dass (PW2) and Rattan Lal (PW3) on the spot was doubtful. Thakur Dass (PW2) was on good terms with the informant and was inimical to the accused. Rattan Lal was not named in the FIR, and no reason was assigned for the omission. The sequence of events narrated by the witnesses did not tally. Ravi Dutt did not support the