Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of HP - Appellant
Versus
Saroop Kumar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 4163 of 2013
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent:Ms Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate

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 justify upholding acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appeal against acquittal - Interference by appellate Court warranted only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, and no two reasonable views possible - Where trial Court finds unexplained delay in FIR, material improvements in victim’s version between complaint and testimony, lack of corroboration from family and hostile independent witnesses, acquittal based on reasonable view not to be disturbed. (Paras 12-14, 32-33)

(B) Delay in lodging FIR - Incident at 12 noon reported at 4:05 PM (6 km distance) - Victim’s claim of immediate reporting contradicted by records - Unexplained delay leads to embellishments, concoction; case to be viewed with caution. (Paras 15-19)

(C) Material improvements in prosecutrix’s testimony - Complaint: accused molested taking advantage of loneliness inside house, beatings, rescued by passersby - Court: filling bucket in courtyard, accused questioned prior behaviour, shirt torn, breast pressed, chased accused with stick, stopped by two persons noting torn shirt - Complete change renders testimony doubtful, prosecution case suspect. (Paras 20-24)

(D) Interested/uncorroborative witnesses - Daughter’s version contradicts victim; husband not eyewitness, admits inimical relations/quarrels; independent witnesses hostile; no evidence of rescuers/passersby. (Paras 25-31)

Facts of the case:
Prosecution case: Accused allegedly trespassed into victim’s home at noon when alone with children, molested and beat her; she shouted, rescued by passersby. FIR after delay; trial Court acquitted under Sections 451, 354 IPC finding improvements in version, unexplained delay, probable false case due to money dispute, hostile witnesses. State appeals asserting minor discrepancies, corroboration on material aspects.

Findings of Court:
Trial Court’s view reasonable; no perversity warranting interference.

Issues: Whether trial Court erred in acquitting due to delay, improvements, discarding testimonies without cogent reasons, hostile witnesses; scope of appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Acquittal upheld as trial Court reasonably doubted prosecution due to unexplained FIR delay permitting embellishments, material changes in victim’s version altering incident sequence/location, non-corroborative family testimonies amid inimical relations, hostile independents - two views possible, restraint in acquittal appeals.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. prosecution case: trespass, molestation, assault alleged. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. acquittal due to delay, improvements, probable defence. (Para 6)
3. arguments contesting trial court's acquittal validity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. acquittal interference only if patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. unexplained fir delay erodes prosecution credibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. victim's testimony materially improved, unreliable. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. daughter's account fails to corroborate victim. (Para 25 , 26)
8. husband biased, not eyewitness. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
9. hostile witnesses, unexamined rescuers weaken case. (Para 30 , 31)
10. uphold reasonable trial view; dismiss appeal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 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 police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant/victim (name withheld to protect her identity) was present in her home on 15.07.2010 with her children. The accused entered her house at about 12 noon and molested her. She protested and accused gave her beatings. She shouted for help, and she was rescued by the passersby. She filed a complaint (Ext.PW1/A) before the police, and the police registered the FIR (Ext.PW4/A). Rajinder Kumar (PW9) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW9/A). The victim produced a shirt (Ext.P1) worn by her at the time of the incident, which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). The shirt was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with four impressions of seal ‘P’. Specimen seal impression (Ext.PW9/B) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Vinod Kumar after use. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Complainant/victim (PW1), her daughter (PW2), and her husband (PW6) narrated the incident. The victim’s son (PW3) was not found to be a competent witness by the learned Trial Court. ASI Kishori Lal (PW4) signed the FIR. Promila (PW5) proved the entry in the daily diary. Rustam Kumar (PW7) and Vinod Kumar (PW8) did not support the prosecution's case. Rajinder Kumar (PW9) investigated the matter.

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 a false case was made against him. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the victim had materially improved upon her initial version. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police, which was not satisfactorily explained. The defence taken, during the cross- examination of the witnesses, that a false case was made because of non-payment of money, was highly probable. Two witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, which also made the prosecution’s case doubtful. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; hence, the accused was acquitted.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Tr