Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Babbu alias Ravinder Kumar and Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 16-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Sunaina Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondents:Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

Appellate interference with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 325 r/w 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Assault case - Trial court acquitted accused holding eyewitness contradictions, unexplained delay in reporting incident, defence witnesses denying occurrence - Medical evidence showing injuries possibly caused by blunt weapon, kicks, fists or self-inflicted/fall - Appellate court, after reappreciating evidence, finds trial court took reasonable possible view; no perversity or omission of material evidence; double presumption of innocence reinforces acquittal - Interference not warranted even if another view possible. (Paras 12-29)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope - Appellate court has full power to review evidence but must consider double presumption in favour of accused; interfere only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable alternative view possible and guilt proved beyond doubt. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Informant proceeding home found accused near residence claiming cow in field; altercation ensued, accused allegedly pushed and beat informant with brother's aid; family rescued; grievous injuries per medical and x-rays; reported to police next day after 16 hours; investigation led to trial; accused acquitted citing contradictions, delay, defence evidence; state appealed.

Findings of Court:
Eyewitness testimonies contradictory on unconsciousness, arrival sequence, bleeding injuries; delay explanation unsatisfactory as family call made next morning; defence witnesses present and denying incident credible; medical not conclusively corroborating assault.

Issues: Whether trial court erred in acquitting on grounds of doubtful prosecution case due to contradictions, delay, defence evidence; scope of appellate interference in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial court reasonably doubted prosecution due to material contradictions, unexplained delay vitiating credibility, reliable defence denial, non-conclusive medical; appellate court upholds as possible view, absent perversity or sole guilt-consistent conclusion.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. trial court acquitted due to contradictions, delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. state seeks reversal; defence opposes interference. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. prosecution testimonies contain material contradictions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. unexplained fir delay suggests embellishment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. defence witnesses get equal credibility weight. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. medical evidence allows self-infliction possibility. (Para 27 , 28)
8. uphold reasonable trial court acquittal view. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 323 and 325 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 police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Laxman Gir (PW1), was going to his home on 24.03.2007. He found Babbu alias Ravinder Kumar (accused) near his home. The informant inquired from the accused as to what he was doing near his home. The accused replied that a cow had entered the informant's field. The informant went to his field to drive away the cow. The accused followed him. The accused pushed the informant. Jafu alias Rajinder Kumar, the brother of the accused Babbu, also reached the spot, and both of them gave beatings to the informant. The informant cried for help. His wife Parveen Kumari (PW2) and daughter Monika (PW4) reached the spot and rescued the informant from the accused. The informant sustained injuries. He reported the matter to the police. An entry (Ex. PW1/E) was recorded in the police post, which was sent to the police station where F.I.R. (Ex.PW5/A) was registered. Deep Chand (PW8) investigated the matter. He filed an application (Ex.PW8/A) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr. R.K. Garg (PW9) conducted the medical examination of the injured and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within 24 hours by a blunt weapon. He issued MLC (Ex. PW9/A). X-rays (Ex. PW3/A) were taken, and the injuries were found to be grievous. Deep Chand visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW8/C). He recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses as per their version. Challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Laxman Gir (PW1) is the informant. Parveen Kumari (PW2) and Monika (PW4) are the eyewitnesses. Dr. Vipin Chaudhary (PW3) went through X-rays and found a grievous injury. Om Parkash (PW5) applied for medical examination of the injured. HHC Sada Shiv (PW6) proved the entry in the daily diary. Mehar Chand (PW7) prepared the challan. Deep Chand (PW8) conducted the investigation. Dr. R.K. Garg (PW9) conducted the medical examination of the injured.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They stated that a false case was made against them due to enmity over the land. Statements of Surindra Devi (DW1) and Raj Kumar (DW2) were recorded in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that Surindra Devi (DW1), whose presence was