Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Bhagirath & Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2020
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra & Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocates

In appeals against acquittal, interference only on perversity; prefer acquittal where two views possible, especially with interested witnesses amid litigations and unexamined material witness.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, 325, 34 - Appeal against acquittal - Trial Court convicted two accused for wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing simple and grievous hurt with common intention, sentenced to simple imprisonment; Sessions Court acquitted on appeal; High Court dismisses State appeal holding no perversity as eye-witnesses reached post-incident, interested injured witnesses with ongoing civil/criminal litigations requiring extra scrutiny, material witness unexamined leading to adverse inference, only one direct witness unreliable. (Paras 41-56)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - Scope - Interference only on perversity or compelling reasons; if two reasonable views possible, prefer acquittal view; appellate court must re-appraise evidence but acquittal carries presumption of innocence. (Paras 42, 53-54, citing Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura and Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat)

Facts of the case:
Dispute over common passage blocked by construction supports/pillars; elderly woman proceeding to greenhouse allegedly obstructed, beaten with fists/kicks by two men and two women causing simple and grievous injuries; son intervened, also beaten; civil/criminal litigations pending between families; eye-witnesses arrived later; medico-legal reports confirm injuries, one grievous vertebral fracture.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence unreliable due to interested witnesses, post-incident arrival of others, non-examination of key witness; appellate acquittal not perverse.

Issues: Whether first appellate Court's acquittal judgment perverse warranting interference; reliability of injured/related witnesses amid litigations; sufficiency of eye-witness accounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Acquittal upheld as no perversity; testimony scrutinized cautiously due to litigations; eye-witnesses not present at occurrence; adverse inference from unexamined witness; two views possible, favour acquittal.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld; bonds discharged.

Table of Content
1. state appeals trial conviction and appellate acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. assault over disputed passage during construction. (Para 7)
3. investigation, charges, trial conviction, first appellate acquittal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. state alleges perversity; defense denies merit. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. injured and family witnesses amid civil litigation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. medical evidence: simple injuries, one grievous. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
7. no interference absent perversity in acquittal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
8. witnesses unreliable due to contradictions, litigation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
9. two views possible; uphold acquittal, dismiss appeal. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)

JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.08.2019, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2017, titled as Bhagirath & Another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, which was filed by the respondents, against the judgment of conviction, dated 15.12.2017 and order of sentence, dated 16.12.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), in Police Challan No.231-I-2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Bhagi Rath & Others.

2. Vide judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2017, the learned trial Court has acquitted accused Anju Devi and Geeta Devi, and convicted accused Bhagi Rath for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC, read with Section 34 and accused Gadku Ram, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with , and sentenced them, as under:-

Bhagi Rath

Sections	Imprisonment
341 IPC	Simple imprisonment for one month
323 & 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC	Simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences

Gadku Ram

Sections	Imprisonment
323 & 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC	Simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences

3. Learned trial Court has also directed that all the sentences of imprisonment of both the accused shall run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved from the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused/convicts Bhagi Rath and Godku have preferred the appeal, under Section 374 Cr.P.C., before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.08.2019, has allowed the appeal and acquitted accused Bhagi Rath, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC read with Section 34 of the and accused Godku, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with of the .

5. Against the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal, before this Court.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

7. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

7.1. The Police of Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, has submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, on the allegations that on 12.06.2014, when ASI Vinod Kumar, Incharge PAR Bhota, in connection with Rapat No.12, along with other police official, was present on the spot, then, Braham Dass, complainant, made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, disclosing therein, that he is working in GSSS Dangar as Laboratory Assistant. His uncle Gadku Ram has started construction of house adjacent to his house for the last 7-8 days. He has also raised pillar on the passage.

7.2. According to the complainant, on 12.06.2014 when mother of the