Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Bharti Rana – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 131 of 2013-A
Decided On : 03-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate.

An appellate court reviewing an acquittal must respect the presumption of innocence unless the judgment is perverse or misreads evidence, supporting the lower court's decision.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Excise Act - Section 61(1)(a) - Appeal against acquittal - State challenged the trial court's acquittal of the accused of the specified offence; it was held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroborating independent evidence, leading to the conclusion that the Trial Court's decision was reasonable and should not be interfered with. (Paras 1, 6, 22, 25)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - An appellate court must respect the double presumption of innocence afforded to an accused once acquitted and only override the acquittal if the judgment is found to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. (Paras 12, 41)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to State of H.P. (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 an offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of H.P. and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that SI/SHO Som Nath (PW5), ASI Chain Singh, ASI Sanjay Kumar, Constable Ashok Kumar, HHG Pradeep Kumar, HHG Dilbag and HHG Lekh Raj were on nakabandi in an official vehicle bearing registration No. HP39A-0459 on 25.09.2008 at 3:00 am. Two vehicles came at a high speed from Dehra at about 6:45 am. The police signalled the drivers to stop, however, the drivers sped away in the vehicles towards Nagrota Surian. SI/SHO Som Nath (PW5) and other police officials followed the vehicles. The Maruti car was stopped at Chandua at about 8:30 am. ASI Chain Singh and other police officials remained on the spot to check the Maruti car. The other vehicle could not be intercepted. SI/SHO Som Nath (PW5), Constable Ashok Kumar, HHG Dilbag Singh and HHG Lekh Raj followed the vehicle and informed the In-charge of Police Post Ranital to intercept it. ASI Manohar Lal (PW2) intercepted the other vehicle bearing registration HP 58A-6789 at Behri at about 9:45 am. The driver identified himself as Sunil Bharti Rana. Cardboard boxes were loaded in the vehicle. The police stopped Jagdish Chand (PW1) and associated him as a witness. The police also called Jitender Kumar (PW3) photographer, to the spot. The cardboard boxes were checked, and they were found to be 55 in number. Each box contained 12 bottles of country liquor. Photographs (Ext.PX and Ext. PY) were taken. One bottle each was taken out as a sample from 7 boxes. Each bottle was sealed with a seal ‘S’. Seal impression (Ext.PW5/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The remaining 653 bottles, vehicle, registration certificate and insurance were seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). Rukka (Ext.PW5/B) was prepared and was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW5/C) was registered. Inspector Som Nath (PW5) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW5/E) and recorded the statements of proseuction witnesses as per their version. He deposited the case property with MHC Sultan (PW4), who deposited it in Maalkhana. He sent the sample bottles to CTL Kandaghat for analysis vide R.C. (Ext.PW4/A) through HHC Rajinder Kumar (PW6). HHC Rajinder Kumar (PW6) deposited the bottles in the CTL Kandaghat and handed over the receipt to MHC on his return. The result of the analysis (Ext.PW5/F) was issued in which it was mentioned that the sample contained 50%, 49.8%, 49.8%, 41%, 50%, 50% and 50% alcohol. 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, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove its case. Jagdish Singh (PW1) is an independent person who did not support the prosecution’s case. Inspector Manohar Lal (PW2) is the witness to the recovery. Jitender Kumar (PW3) took the photographs. MHC Sultan (PW4) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. Inspector Som Nath (PW5) investigate