Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Singh alias Pinki & others - Respondents
Cr. Appeal No.462 of 2011
Decided On :17-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate

In acquittal appeals, interference only if perverse or ignoring evidence; dock identification without prior TIP insufficient for unknown accused, combined with investigative lapses like unexplained aliases, entry overwriting, non-recovered weapon justifies acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 332, 353 read with 34 - Assault causing hurt to public servant and assault to deter from duty - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review evidence but must consider double presumption of innocence; interference warranted only if acquittal perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable view possible except guilt. (Paras 13-14)

(B) Identification of accused - When witnesses did not know assailants prior to incident, dock identification without prior test identification parade (TIP) highly suspect and insufficient to prove identity; TIP essential to test observation power, as first-time court identification prone to error. (Paras 16-22)

(C) Prosecution case - Discrepancies in aliases linking to accused unexplained; overwriting in departure entry undermines presence/timing; non-recovery of weapon without explanation; medical evidence hypothetical, supports alternate hypothesis like fall; lack of independent corroboration creates reasonable doubt. (Paras 15,23-27,31)

Facts of the case:
Police personnel on evening patrol heard commotion, intervened at bus stand where group beating two persons; attempted to stop vehicle, three persons alighted, assaulted informant with iron rod, kicks, fists, tore uniform while obstructing duty. Trial court convicted, sessions court acquitted for identity not proved, no TIP, discrepancies; State appealed.

Findings of Court:
Acquittal upheld as reasonable view taken; no perversity or ignored evidence warranting reversal.

Issues: Whether identity proved sans TIP despite court identification; impact of name variations, diary overwriting, non-recovered weapon on credibility; scope of interference in acquittal appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Sessions court's acquittal rested on valid grounds like absent TIP for unknown accused, investigative gaps, testimonial inconsistencies creating doubt; trial court overlooked identity issue; appellate view reasonable, not to be disturbed even if another possible.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. police assaulted obstructing vehicle amid brawl. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial convicts on corroborated eyewitness testimony. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. appellate acquits doubting identity without tip. (Para 7)
4. parties contest tip necessity and discrepancies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. fir aliases unlinked to identified accused. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. dock id unreliable absent prior tip. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. io must explain offender detection steps. (Para 23 , 24)
9. time log interpolation doubts witness presence. (Para 25 , 26)
10. weapon non-recovery weakens prosecution case. (Para 27)
11. no independent witnesses corroborates testimony. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
12. medical evidence permits alternative injury causes. (Para 31)
13. reasonable appellate view precludes interference. (Para 32)
14. appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 08.06.2010 and order of sentence dated 09.06.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside and the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charged offences. (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 353, 332, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).It was asserted that the informant, Constable Naginder Singh (PW-1), and HHC Hem Singh (PW-2) had gone for patrolling on 06.01.2003 at about 6:00 p.m. towards Ghumarwin Bazar, Ghandi Chowk. They were present near Gandhi Chowk towards Ghumarwin at approximately 9:30 p.m., when they heard a commotion emanating from the Bus Stand. Constable Naginder Singh (PW-1) and HHC Hem Singh (PW-2) went towards the Bus Stand, where they saw that 10-20 people were beating two people. The assailants boarded the vehicle bearing registration No.HP28-2305, HP28-7261 and HP03A-0230. The informant tried to stop the vehicle bearing registration No.HP28-2305. Pappi @ Rakesh, Pinki (who died during the pendency of the appeal and proceedings against him abated vide order dated 20.06.2025) and Jasbir got down the vehicle. Pappi caught hold of the informant’s neck, and Pinky inflicted a blow by means of an iron rod on the informant’s face. Pappi and Jasbir gave beating to the informant by kicks and fist blows. The uniform of the informant was torn in the incident. The assailants ran away from the spot. The matter was reported to the police, and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered in the Police Station. Virender Singh (PW-6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-6/A).An application (Ext.PW-4/A) was filed for conducting a medical examination of the injured. Dr R.K.Dhiman (PW-4) medically examined the injured. He found multiple injuries on the informant’s body. He advised an X-ray, but no fracture was detected. Hence, the nature of the injuries was described to be simple. MLC (Ext.PW-4/C) was issued. The appointment and posting orders(Ext. PA and Ext.PB) were taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their versions, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Section 353and 332 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to wh