Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Anant Ram Negi - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 252 of 2014
Decided On : 04-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant/State :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr Y.P. Sood, Advocate

High Courts interfere with acquittal only if trial judgment perverse, misreads material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; double presumption favors upholding acquittal where two views emerge.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451, 354 and 323 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - State appealed against trial court's acquittal of accused for house-trespass to commit offence, assault or criminal force to outrage modesty, and voluntarily causing hurt - Trial court acquitted finding civil dispute over house possession, genesis suspect as possession with accused, material contradictions/improvements in informant and son statements, unreliable chance eyewitnesses, site plan showing accused's labourer residing, medical evidence of simple blunt injuries not corroborating stick beating or chest injury - High Court held trial court took reasonable possible view, no perversity or misreading of evidence warranting interference. (Paras 6, 14-28)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of appellate interference - Full power to review evidence but double presumption of innocence; interfere only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no two reasonable views possible and only guilt-consistent view emerges - If two reasonable conclusions possible, do not disturb acquittal. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Informant alleged accused with others trespassed her home, threw articles out, threw her from verandah, tore salwar, molested, beat her and son - Stemming from civil dispute where possession handed to accused who placed labourer - Trial court acquitted due to doubtful genesis, contradictions; State appealed claiming evidence proved case beyond doubt.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution version not believable due to possession with accused, contradictions in numbers of persons, throwing from verandah, ownership claims, chance witnesses' suspect presence and conduct, lack of corroboration by medical evidence or independent testimony; trial court view reasonable.

Issues: Scope of High Court interference in acquittal appeals; whether trial court erred in rejecting prosecution evidence amid civil possession dispute and witness inconsistencies.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial court reasonably discarded prosecution case based on admitted possession delivery to accused, site plan evidence, chance witnesses requiring cautious scrutiny, material contradictions/improvements, and uncorroborative medical findings; appellate reversal unwarranted absent perversity or sole guilt view. Result : Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. trial court acquits accused citing contradictions and civil dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. state urges reversal; defence cites property possession dispute. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable view. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. evidence establishes accused's lawful possession of premises. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. chance witnesses unreliable due to coincidence and contradictions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. interested witnesses' statements materially contradictory. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. medical evidence shows simple injuries without specific corroboration. (Para 27)
8. trial court's reasonable view warrants no interference. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Theog, District Shimla (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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 451, 354 and 323 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant (name withheld to protect her identity) had visited her home on 22.08.2009 at about 6:00 P.M. Accused Anant Ram came to her home with 4-5 persons and gave beatings to the informant (PW2) and her son (PW4). The accused threw the informant’s articles outside the home. When the informant took the articles inside the home, the accused and two other persons threw her from the verandah of the house. The accused Anant Ram tore her Salwar and molested her. The other persons gave beatings to the informant’s son, who rescued himself and saved the informant. The accused had also threatened the informant before this incident. She sustained injuries in the incident. She filed an application (Ext.PW2/A) before the police. The police registered the FIR (Ext.PW1/A) and applied for the informant’s medical examination. Dr Seema Rani (PW7) medically examined the informant and found that she had sustained simple injuries that could have been inflicted by a blunt weapon. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW7/A). Dr Preeti Kapila (PW8) went through the informant’s X-rays and found no evidence of fracture. ASI Prakash Chand (PW9) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW9/A). The informant produced her shirt (Ext.P4) and salwar (Ext.P3). ASI Prakash Chand put them in a cloth parcel, sealed the parcel with seal ‘M’, obtained the seal impression (Ext.P2) on a separate piece of cloth, and handed over the seal to Shamsher after use. He seized the parcel vide memo (Ext.PW2/B). 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 found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 and 323 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. ASI Kundan Singh (PW1) proved the FIR and partly investigated the matter. The informant (PW2) and her son (PW4) narrated the incident. The informant’s husband (PW3) was told about the incident. Phulma Devi (PW5) and Madan Singh (PW6) are the eyewitnesses. Dr Seema Rani (PW7) medically examined the informant. Dr Priti Kapila (PW8) went through the X-ray and issued the report. ASI Prakash Chand (PW9) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section