Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar and Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 4239 of 2013
Decided On : 10-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajit Sharma
For the Respondent: Karan Singh Kanwar

Appellate interference in acquittal appeals limited to perverse findings or sole guilt view; unexplained FIR delay, testimony contradictions, enmity motive, non-corroborative medicals, and SC/ST investigation violation justify upholding acquittal as reasonable trial view.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Appellate court can review evidence but should not disturb if trial court’s view reasonable and possible on record - Interference only if perverse, misreading/omission of material evidence, or only guilt view possible - Double presumption of innocence post-acquittal - Here, trial court acquitted due to unexplained FIR delay despite means to report promptly, contradiction in incident place (inside vs outside cowshed), strained relations from land dispute with prior FIR, medical evidence showing simple injuries possibly from fall not patterned stick blows, absence of independent rescuer witness, and investigation violation under SC/ST Rules requiring DSP from start - View reasonable, no interference. (Paras 12, 15-27)

(B) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Rule 7 - Investigation for offences must be by officer not below DSP rank; initial probe by lower officer followed by later takeover/supervision invalidates proceedings under Act though IPC offences may stand. (Paras 23-26)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 323, 506 r/w 34 - Outraging modesty, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation - Prosecution case suspect on FIR delay leading to embellishment, testimonial inconsistencies, motive from enmity, non-corroborative medicals, no independent evidence. (Paras 15-22)

Facts of the case:
Informant alleged accused entered cowshed, caught arms, touched breasts, tore shirt, beat her and daughter on rescue, threatened; simple injuries noted medically next day; FIR lodged after ~30 hours; prior land/grass dispute enmity with demarcation and earlier FIR by complainant side; site plan, seized shirt/sticks; caste certificate proved scheduled caste status.

Findings of Court:
Acquittal proper; unexplained delay as victims traveled 55 km to witness same evening but not 50 km to police; place shifted in testimony vs FIR; medicals compatible with fall, no stick patterns; no independent corroboration; investigation flawed for Act; reasonable trial view upheld.

Issues: Whether trial acquittal perverse warranting reversal; adequacy of FIR delay explanation; impact of place contradiction, enmity motive, medical fit, witness lapse, investigation procedure on credibility.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial acquittal not perverse where multiple factors like delay, inconsistencies, motive, weak corroboration, procedural breach support innocence view; appellate restraint unless sole guilt conclusion inevitable per Supreme Court tests.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against acquittal in molestation and assault case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial charging, witnesses, and accused enmity defense. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. trial acquittal due to delay and contradictions. (Para 6)
4. state argues medical corroboration ignores minor inconsistencies. (Para 7 , 9)
5. defense cites unexplained delay and strained relations. (Para 10)
6. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
7. unexplained fir delay fatal to prosecution credibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
8. contradictions, enmity, medical doubt, no corroboration weaken case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
9. sc/st act requires dsp-level investigation, violated here. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
10. uphold reasonable acquittal; dismiss appeal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.7.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan (learned Trial Court), vide which 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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). It was asserted that the informant/victim was present in her cowshed on 17.8.2010. Her daughter was inside the house. Accused Sandeep Kumar and Chhotu Ram entered the cowshed. They caught hold of the informant’s arms and touched her breasts. Her shirt was torn in the incident. She shouted for help. Her daughter reached the spot. She rescued the informant from the accused. The accused gave beatings to the informant and her daughter. Mani Ram reached the spot and rescued the informant. The accused threatened to kill the informant in case the incident was reported to any person. The informant went to the Police Station and narrated the matter to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A). HC Sanjay Kumar (PW9) investigated the matter. He filed the application (Ex.PW4/A) for medical examination of the informant and her daughter. Dr Yashwant (PW4) medically examined the informant/victim and found that she had sustained simple injuries that could have been caused within 12 to 48 hours. He issued MLC (Ex.PW4/B). He also examined the victim’s daughter and found that she had sustained simple injuries that could have been caused by a blunt weapon within 24 to 48 hours. He issued MLC (Ex.PW4/C). The informant produced her shirt (Ex. P1), which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). It was sealed in a cloth parcel with seal impression ‘R’. Sample seal (Ex.PW9/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Ved Prakash (PW3) after its use. HC Sanjay Kumar (PW9) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/B). He recorded the statements of witnesses and found that the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act was committed. Further investigation was handed over to Nischint Negi (PW10), Deputy Superintendent of Police, who visited the spot and verified the site plan (Ex.PW9/B). He recorded the statement of Mani Ram. He seized the parcel vide memo (Ex.PW10/A). Rajesh produced one stick (Ex.P2), which was seized vide memo (Ex. PW5/A). Sandeep produced the stick (Ex. P3), which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW5/B). Shamsher Singh (PW6) produced the caste certificate (Ex.PW6/A), which shows that the victim belonged to the Koli caste, which is a scheduled caste. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Cou