Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Chand and Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 162 of 2011
Decided On : 01-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Lokinder Kuthleria, Jitender K. Sharma, Prashant Sen, Tarun Pathak, Ajit Sharma, Sunaina Chaudhari
For the Respondent: Pranshul Sharma

Appellate interference in acquittal warranted only if perverse, misreading evidence, or no reasonable view supports innocence; trial acquittal upheld where prosecution riddled with inconsistencies despite eyewitnesses.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 336, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 - SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(v) - Appeal against acquittal - Accused allegedly damaged construction pillars on joint land, pelted stones, abused on caste basis to prevent scheduled caste member from building - Trial Court acquitted holding joint ownership, no exclusive possession or partition proved, civil dispute with injunction order pending, co-owner cannot construct unilaterally without consent - Prosecution case failed due to inconsistencies in pillar construction dates across witnesses, doubtful photographs showing no pillars, demarcation report silent on damage, exaggerated loss claim, omnibus caste abuse without specific attribution, absence of stones at site, visibility issues for eyewitnesses - Appellate Court found trial view reasonable, no perversity or material evidence omission. (Paras 6, 22-35)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate Court has full power to review evidence but double presumption favours accused - Interference only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, no reasonable alternative view possible supporting acquittal. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Parties purchased biswa of land each in 2000, joint ownership continued unpartitioned - Informant started house pillars construction in 2008, contractor and labourers allegedly attacked by accused who damaged pillars/shuttering, pelted stones, caste abuse, claimed court injunction - Trial acquitted, State appealed asserting exclusive possession via pillars, eyewitnesses, photos proved damage, accused took law in hands.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence infirm, benefit of doubt to accused, trial acquittal proper, appeal dismissed.

Issues: Proof of exclusive possession/damage/caste atrocity offences; contradictions in eyewitness timelines/visibility; effect of joint ownership/civil injunction; scope of appellate interference in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two reasonable views possible on evidence, appellate court defers to trial acquittal reinforced by innocence presumption - Generalised/omnibus witness statements unsafe without particulars, circumstances like absent recovery items falsify claims.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. trial acquitted accused of construction damage on joint land with sc/st claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. state seeks reversal; defence urges no interference with acquittal (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or material evidence ignored (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. eyewitnesses unreliable due to absence, hearsay, cross contradictions (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. timeline, photo, site discrepancies undermine construction damage claim (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. omnibus caste abuse statements unsafe without specific roles (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. joint ownership bars trespass; acquittal view reasonable (Para 33 , 34)
8. appeal dismissed upholding trial court acquittal (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan (HP) (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charges framed against them. (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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 447, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC & ST Act”) read with Section 34 of the . It was asserted that the victim Bhungar Ram Bhatia (PW1) and the accused Jagdish purchased one biswa of land bearing khasra no. 110 each from Abhi Ram in 2000. Accused Jagdish constructed a house after the purchase, whereas the land purchased by the informant was lying vacant. The informant started the construction of his house on 31.08.2008. He had constructed four pillars. The informant engaged Pawan Kumar (PW2) as a contractor to carry out the construction. The informant went to Chandigarh on 22.09.2008. He was returning to his home when he received a call on 23.09.2008 at about 05.00 PM that the construction was damaged by Jagdish. The informant went to the spot. Pawan Kumar revealed that Jagdish and Naresh had come to the spot and pelted stones at the labourers. They abused the informant in the name of his caste and said that they would not permit a member of the scheduled caste to construct a house near their house. Pawan Kumar had jumped to save himself, and the Rs.30,000/- kept by him in his pocket fell. Jagdish and Naresh damaged one pillar and created a hole in another pillar. The shuttering was removed and thrown into the nala. The informant suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The incident was witnessed by Ward Member Babu Ram, Durga Ram, Chet Ram, Dhana Ram, and Mahender, who were present on the road. The matter was reported to Kailash Chand Gupta (Pradhan), who tried to reconcile the matter; however, the reconciliation could not be effected. Hence, the matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ex. PW21/A). Kulwant Singh (PW20) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex. PW20/A). He seized the shuttering lying on the spot and handed it over on supurdari vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). He took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4). Narveer Singh (PW16) continued the investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. Dinesh Kumar (PW18) conducted the remaining investigation. The informant produced the copies of the Jamabandi (Ex. P6), sale deed (Ex. P5), technical report (Ex. P7), and estimate (Ex. P8), which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). Dinesh Kumar filed applications (Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW17/A) for obtaining the pedigree table and caste certificate of the parties. Keshav Ram (PW17) issued the caste certificates of the informant (E