Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2013
Decided On : 11-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Shivangi Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

High Court upheld acquittal in illicit liquor case refusing state appeal interference, as first appellate court's view on contradictions in official testimonies, raiding party suspicion, seal discrepancies, and missing sample seal link evidence was reasonable, not perverse.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Excise Act, 1914 - Section 61(1)(a) (as applicable to H.P.) - Illicit liquor recovery from vehicle - 24 bottles recovered during patrolling interception - Trial court convicted based on official witnesses' testimonies holding chance recovery and non-association of independent witness immaterial - First appellate court acquitted due to material contradictions, prior raiding party preparation undermining chance recovery, inconsistent gunny bag procurement statements, seal impression discrepancies, and missing link evidence on sample seal despite chemical reports - High Court upheld acquittal as first appellate court took reasonable view with prosecution case suspect on integrity of case property. (Paras 7,16-23)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 378, 386 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to reappreciate evidence but interference warranted only if acquittal perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable view except guilt possible - Double presumption of innocence reinforced post-acquittal; if two views possible, acquittal not to be disturbed. (Paras 13-15)

Facts of the case:
Police party on patrolling in official vehicle intercepted another vehicle at 8:30 p.m., found 24 bottles of liquor in torn carton, retained 5 as samples sealed with seal ‘A’, remaining 19 in gunny bag also sealed; samples analysed confirming 65% proof alcohol; no independent witnesses associated despite vehicles passing by and efforts claimed; trial court convicted sentencing to 6 months SI and fine; first appellate court set aside conviction; state appealed to High Court.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution case rendered doubtful by unexplained prior raiding party preparation, inconsistent gunny bag procurement, illegible seal impression reading possibly ‘B’, no witness evidence of sample seal sent separately despite chemical report claiming intact seal tallied with separately sent impression, creating missing link in custody chain.

Issues: Scope of High Court interference with first appellate acquittal; whether contradictions, evidentiary lapses on raiding party, seals, samples constituted reasonable doubt justifying acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: First appellate court reasonably appreciated evidence finding material contradictions and integrity issues casting doubt; no patent perversity or ignored evidence warranting reversal; limited interference principles from Supreme Court applied, upholding acquittal where another view possible.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. liquor recovery facts; trial conviction; appellate acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties contend on evidence contradictions and interference. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. acquittal interference only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. doubts from raid party, no independents, gunny inconsistencies, seals. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. sample seal link evidence missing; integrity suspect. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. acquittal reasonable; state appeal dismissed. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.). It was asserted that ASI Amar Singh (PW-4), Rajinder Singh (PW-2), and HHC Jagdish Chand were on patrolling duty on 04.06.2005 in an official vehicle bearing registration No. HP68-0816, which was being driven by Janak Chand (PW-5). They intercepted a van bearing registration number HP-53-1924 at 8:30 p.m. and found 24 bottles of XXX Rum Josh inside a torn carton. The driver identified himself as Anil Kumar. Five bottles were retained as samples for analysis, and the remaining 19 bottles were put in a gunny bag. The sample bottles and gunny bag were sealed with seal ‘A’. Seal impression (Ext.PW4/A) was taken on a piece of cloth. Gunny bag and sample bottles were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/A). The accused produced the documents of the vehicle, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/B). Rukka (Ext.PW-4/B was prepared and sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered. ASI Amar Singh (PW-4) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-4/C) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He took the photographs of the vehicle (Ext.PW- 4/D-1 to Ext.PW-4/D-4) whose negatives are Ext.PW-4/D-5 to Ext.PW-4/D-8. The case property was deposited with MHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), who deposited it in Malkhana. He handed over the sample bottles to Jagdish Chand (PW-3) with a direction to carry them to CTL Kandaghat for chemical analysis vide RC No. 72/21. Jagdish Chand deposited the sample bottles in a safe condition at CTL Kandaghat and handed over the receipt to Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) on his return. The result of the analysis (Ext. PX and PY) was issued, in which it was mentioned that each bottle contained 65.0% proof alcohol. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court framed the charge against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.), to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) was working as an MHC with whom the case property was deposited. Rajender Singh (PW-2) and Janak Chand (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. Jagdish Chand (PW-3) carried the sample to CTL Kandaghat. ASI Amar Singh (PW-4) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that he was falsely implicated by the police. The witnesse