2025 Supreme(HP) 1696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Pawan Kumar @ Pammi - Petitioner 
Versus
State of HP - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 64 of 2014
Decided On : 03-12-2025

High Court in revision acquitted accused of outraging modesty and hurt, holding lower courts perversely ignored prosecution infirmities like no early molestation complaint, independent witnesses supporting dues scuffle, and uncorroborated victim testimony.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 354 - Outraging modesty of woman and voluntarily causing hurt - Conviction by Trial Court and upheld in appeal set aside by High Court in revision - Lower courts erred in relying solely on victim and daughter testimonies without corroboration - Defence version of scuffle over refusal of credit for previous dues highly probable - No complaint of molestation in initial police entry or medical examination applications - Independent witnesses deposed only scuffle over dues, no molestation - Medical evidence proves injuries to both but does not corroborate molestation - Victim testimony has improvements and infirmities like torn shirt from bottom not supporting molestation claim; broken bangles not recovered from inside shop - Testimony of victim of sexual assault not to be blindly accepted if improbable or lacking corroboration. (Paras 19-43)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 and 482 - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope - Extremely narrow; not appellate jurisdiction - Not to reappreciate evidence, reanalyse facts or upset concurrent findings unless patent defect, perversity, jurisdictional error or gross miscarriage of justice - To interfere only if lower court findings based on no evidence, ignore material evidence or exercise discretion arbitrarily. (Paras 13-18)

Facts of the case:
Victim went to accused's shop to purchase bangles; alleged accused caught her arm, pressed breasts, beat her on protest; daughter arrived on hearing shouts, rescued with help of another; police called, FIR registered; accused claimed victim sought credit despite prior dues, refused, leading to abuse and scuffle; both sustained simple injuries; independent witnesses saw only scuffle outside shop over dues; Trial Court convicted, Appellate Court upheld.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution case full of infirmities; defence version corroborated by initial police entry, independent witnesses, unexplained accused injuries, absence of early molestation complaint and site plan/recovery inconsistencies; lower courts ignored these and perversely relied on unreliable testimonies.

Issues: Whether lower courts erred in convicting accused solely on victim and related testimonies despite material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration for molestation, probable defence explanation and medical evidence supporting mutual scuffle.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional court can set aside concurrent convictions where lower courts fail to appreciate glaring infirmities, improbable prosecution story and probable defence, leading to miscarriage of justice; victim testimony in sexual offence cases requires scrutiny and corroboration if doubtful.

Result: Revision allowed; accused acquitted of charges under Sections 323 and 354 IPC; judgments of courts below set aside.