Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar and Others – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 401 of 2014
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : I.N. Mehta
For the Respondent: Sarvedaman Rathore

In appeals against acquittal, appellate courts interfere only if trial court findings perverse or sole possible view convicts; here prosecution failed due to medical inconsistencies, unproved firearm, absent linkage, upholding acquittal as reasonable view. (38 words)

Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C. - Section 378(3) - IPC - Sections 307, 323, 452 r/w 34 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate Court has power to re-appreciate evidence but must consider double presumption of innocence - Interference justified only if trial court view perverse, based on erroneous law, or causes grave injustice - If two reasonable views possible, acquittal not to be disturbed - Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence lacking charring around wound suggesting possible fall injury, intact cartridge inconsistent with firing, unproved firearm working condition, no linkage to accused, absence of independent witnesses despite neighbourhood. (Paras 9-26)

(B) Criminal Trial - Burden of proof - Remains on prosecution - Suspicion cannot substitute proof - Grave doubt or conjecture insufficient for conviction. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
Complainant visited clinic for medicines, accused demanded mobile alleging theft; later altercation occurred; accused allegedly trespassed into residence, attacked wife, fired shot at complainant from behind with country made revolver causing head injury; accused bolted door and fled; FIR registered post-medical exam; trial court acquitted; state appealed.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence unreliable; acquittal judgment reasonable and not perverse; no interference warranted.

Issues: Scope of appellate interference in acquittal appeals; sufficiency of prosecution evidence including medical, recovery, and eyewitness testimonies to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial court correctly appreciated evidence; appellate court cannot substitute view merely because another possible if trial view reasonable; doubts from medical (no charring, possible fall), intact cartridge, unlinked firearm, no independent corroboration render prosecution case unproved. Result : Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. state appeals trial court acquittal in assault case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on evidence appreciation by trial court (Para 6 , 7)
3. limited appellate interference with acquittal orders (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. charges; prosecution rests on key witnesses (Para 15 , 16)
5. injured, wife depose accused attack, shooting (Para 17 , 18)
6. medical evidence allows non-firearm injury possibility (Para 19 , 20)
7. evidentiary gaps; suspicion not proof (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
8. appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld (Para 26)

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of acquittal, dated 15.03.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 59-ST/7 of 2013 2012, whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) were acquitted of the charge for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to instant appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that complainant-Shri Surinder Kumar, alongwith his wife Smt. Jyoti and their children, used to live in a rented accommodation at village Jattanwali, Kala Amb and on 03.09.2011 the complainant visited the clinic of accused Amit Kumar for some medicines. Accused Amit, after giving medicines to the complainant, asked him to return his mobile, but he (complainant) told him that he was not having his mobile. It has further come in the prosecution story that on 12.09.2011, around 10 a.m., when the complainant was going to Kala Amb for bringing kerosene oil, accused Aditya alongwith 3-4 boys met him near Ruchira Paper Mill and accused Aditya quarreled with him for lifting the mobile of Amit. On the same day, around 04:15 p.m., when the accused alongwith his wife and children, was in his accommodation, accused persons came and attacked his wife and when the complainant tried to rescue her, accused Aditya fired a shot from behind with country made revolver which struck on the right side of his head. Subsequently, the accused persons fled away from the spot and also bolted the door from outside. Later on, someone opened the door from outside and the complainant reported the matter to the police. The medical examination of the complainant was got conducted at Sneh Hospital, Kala Amb and upon his statement FIR was registered. During the course of the investigation, police completed all the codal formalities, viz., prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected relevant recoveries, clicked the photographs and collected scientific samples. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 19.11.2012 framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 452 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein they denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against them, besides pleaded to be innocent and being falsely implicated. However, the accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.

5. Vide impugned judgment dated 15.03.2014, the learned trial Court, acquitted the accused persons for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

6. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip- shod and perfunctory m