Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Nitya Devi Sharma and Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 429 of 2012
Decided On : 06-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondents:M/s Anjali Soni Verma & Shivani Tegta, Advocates.

The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to reasonable doubts in witness credibility and the lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 325 and 504 - Appeal against acquittal - Respondents acquitted of causing grievous injuries to the informant and abusing him - The trial court found discrepancies and lack of corroboration in prosecution evidence - The appeal raises issues of reasonable doubt in presence of conflicting testimonies. (Paras 1 to 6 and 25)

(B) Judicial Approach - The appellate court must respect findings of the trial court unless there are compelling reasons to disturb them - The principle of double presumption in favor of the accused applies in cases of acquittal. (Paras 10, 25, and 39)

Facts of the case:
The case arose from an incident where the informant’s father was allegedly assaulted by the accused during a dispute over land fencing leading to criminal charges against them. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the narrative of events due to inconsistencies in witness testimony.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found significant discrepancies in witness statements and established that discrepancies were not minor but rather indicated insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges brought by the prosecution.

Issues: The primary issues addressed included whether the acquittal was justified based on the quality of evidence presented and if the appellate court should interfere in the trial court's findings.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court concluded that reasonable doubts persisted regarding the prosecution’s allegations, confirming the lower court's ruling to acquit. It reaffirmed that appellate courts do not substitute their view for that of the trial court unless error in law or fact was demonstrated.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 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 against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that informant Satish Kumar (PW1) and his father Jagjivan Ram (PW6) were creating a passage on 02.12.2008 at about 9 am for taking the tractor to their land. Nitya Sharma (accused) had a field on the way. She had put the bamboo fencing in her field. One bamboo was erected on the corner of the informant’s field. Jagjivan Ram uprooted the bamboo. The accused became infuriated and started abusing the informant and his father. She pushed Jagjivan, who fell. Accused Susheel and Pooja abused the informant and his father. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW4/A) was recorded in the daily diary, and an application was filed for conducting the medical examination of Jagjivan. Dr Umesh Kashyap (PW8) conducted the medical examination and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He advised an X-ray and a CT scan. As per the report of the Radiologist, a fracture was seen. Hence, the nature of the injury was stated to be grievous, which could have been caused within three hours of the examination. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW8/A). An entry (Ext.PW4/B) was recorded after the receipt of the MLC, and FIR (Ext.PW7/A) was registered in the Police Station. HC Khem Singh (PW7) conducted the investigation. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW7/C). He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. Satish Kumar (PW1) is the informant. Suresh Singh (PW2) is an eyewitness. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW3) is the Radiologist who went through the X-ray and issued the report regarding the fracture. HC Ravinder Chand (PW4) proved the entries in the daily diary. Vipan Sharma (PW5) treated the injured. Jagjivan Ram (PW6) is the injured. HC Khem Singh (PW7) investigated the matter. Dr Umesh Kashyap (PW8) conducted the initial medical examination.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They claimed that they were innocent and falsely implicated. They did not produce any evidence in their defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that Jagjivan Ram (PW6) had not stated that the field of Nitya Sharma was located on the way to his field or that she had fenced it with bamboo. The presence of Suresh Singh (PW2) was not established satisfactorily. Satish Kumar (PW1) stated in his cross- examination that Jagjivan Ram had not uprooted the bamboo pole, which is contrary to his statement in his examination-in- chief. The site plan (Ext.PW7/C) also made the prosecution’s case suspect. There was no corroboration of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused were acquitted of the charged offences.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State