Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P - Appellant
Versus
Raghubir Singh & other - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 391 of 2012
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr Anshul Attri, Advocate

In appeal against acquittal lacking reasons, re-appreciation permissible; no interference if Trial Court view sustainable despite evidentiary infirmities like hostile witnesses, FIR delay and absent identification, upholding presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 341 and 323 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Trial Court acquitted accused extending benefit of doubt without assigning reasons for disbelieving prosecution evidence - Held: Though failure to record reasons amounts to denial of justice as reasons are live links between mind of decision-maker and conclusion, considering long pendency, matter re-appreciated instead of remitted - Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt as most eyewitnesses turned hostile, remaining eyewitness made omnibus allegations without court identification of accused, unexplained delay in FIR, contradictions in version including timing of incident and possibility of injuries from fall, reliance on related witnesses - View of Trial Court sustainable despite lack of reasons - No interference warranted - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 14-17, 19-41)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - Scope - Appellate Court has full power to review evidence but must bear double presumption of innocence; interference only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence or no reasonable view possible except guilt. (Paras 12-13)

(C) Judicial orders - Reasons - Indispensable for transparency, accountability and judicial review; substitute subjectivity with objectivity; absence renders order unsustainable. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
Informant allegedly assaulted by group of accused with fists and kicks while returning from house function at night; rescued by eyewitnesses; reported to ward member who suggested village settlement; FIR lodged later; medical examination showed blunt trauma injuries; trial witnesses largely hostile or unreliable; Trial Court acquitted without detailing discrepancies.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence unreliable due to hostile key witnesses, lack of accused identification in court, delayed and contradictory FIR, possible alternative injury cause; acquittal upheld.

Issues: Whether Trial Court judgment perverse for lacking reasons; reliability of prosecution evidence including eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence and FIR; scope of appellate interference in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Deficiency of reasons vitiates judgment but on re-appreciation, if acquittal view reasonably possible considering prosecution infirmities like hostile witnesses, delay, non-identification and contradictions, appellate court refrains from interference upholding double presumption of innocence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of incident and trial acquittal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties contend on trial errors and acquittal validity (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
3. limited appellate interference with acquittal if reasonable (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. judgments must record cogent reasons for decisions (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. re-appreciate evidence instead of remanding case (Para 18)
6. hostile eyewitnesses fail to support prosecution (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. ward member's statement does not implicate accused (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
8. omnibus testimony without identification unreliable (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. injuries possibly from fall; uncorroborated victim account (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
10. unexplained fir delay fatal to prosecution case (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
11. contradictions and interested witnesses draw adverse inference (Para 38 , 39)
12. sole testimony insufficient; acquittal sustainable (Para 40 , 41)
13. appeal dismissed; bail bonds directed (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.08.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charged offences by extending them benefit of doubt. (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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). It was asserted that the informant/victim Pradeep Kumar (PW11) had gone to the house of Bija Ram on 04.01.2009. He was returning to his home at about 2 am. Ravinder Kumar (PW9), Hariman (PW2) and Surat Ram (PW3) were also going to their home. Accused Raghubir caught hold of the informant Pradeep Kumar (PW11) by his arms and pushed him against the wall. Accused Pappu and Chunni Lal gave him fist blows. Accused Pratap, Ravinder, Santosh, Gita Ram, Raj Gopal and Dinesh also gave him beatings. He shouted for help. Ravinder Kumar (PW9), Hariman (PW2) and Surat Ram (PW3) rescued him. The informant sustained injuries. He talked to Ward Member Sant Ram, who told him that it was a matter of the village and should be settled in the village. The accused said that they would not settle the matter, and the informant could do whatever he felt like. The informant went to the police station and narrated the incident to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ext.PW8/A). HC Pratap Singh (PW10) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW10/A). Pradeep Kumar (PW11) produced his shirt (Ext.P1), which was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘T’. Seal impression (Ext.PW10/B) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to witness Hariman after its use. Doctor D.D. Sharma (PW1) medically examined Pradeep Kumar (PW11) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries which could have been caused within 12-24 hours of the examination by a blunt weapon. He issued MLC (Ext.PW1/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court put notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 147, 341, and 323, read with Section 149 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. D.D. Sharma (PW1) is the Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination of the victim. Hariman (PW2), Surat Ram (PW3) and Ravinder Kumar (PW9) are the eyewitnesses. Ramesh Chand (PW4) was a Ward Member to whom the complaint was