Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Sarla Devi - Appellant
Versus
Mahinder Pratap & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2009
Decided On : 31-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun K. Brakta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.

Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or ignoring material evidence; here, unexplained delay, witness contradictions rendered trial court's acquittal sustainable.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court entitled to reappreciate evidence but interferes only if trial court findings perverse i.e. based on no evidence, against weight of evidence, ignoring material or outrageously defying logic - Double presumption of innocence operates post-acquittal - No interference if two reasonable views possible. (Paras 17-41)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 500, 506 r/w 34 (charges framed u/s 504, 506 r/w 34) - Defamation and criminal intimidation - Allegations of illicit relations with witness and being characterless lady during revenue inquiry amid land disputes - Unexplained delay of six months eighteen days in filing complaint fatal - Contradictions in prosecution witnesses re presence of others, civil litigation backdrop - Defence witness contradicting incident - Prosecution evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond doubt. (Paras 42-48)

Facts of the case:
Complainant residing alone with children alleged accused abused and defamed her character by imputing illicit relations during revenue officials' spot visit following her complaints against villagers for land harassment; witnesses deposed similarly but admitted delays, multiple persons present, no immediate report by officials; police initiated preventive proceedings; trial court acquitted; appeal contending perverse appreciation of evidence.

Findings of Court:
Trial court judgment well-reasoned, no perversity; acquittal legally sustainable; appeal dismissed.

Issues: Whether trial court acquittal perverse warranting reversal; whether prosecution proved defamatory utterances and threats through reliable evidence despite delay and inconsistencies.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial court correctly noted unexplained delay, contradictions in timing/presence, futile Panchayat/police attempts, civil disputes motivating false case; defence evidence supporting no abusive words during relevant period; findings possible from record, not perverse.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against defamation acquittal under crpc 378. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of defamation and criminal threats. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. trial court perversely misappreciated prosecution evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. interfere in acquittal only if perverse. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. witnesses depose to defamatory illicit relations accusation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. perverse finding defies evidence or logic. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
7. unexplained delay undermines prosecution; no perversity. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
8. appeal dismissed; acquittal judgment upheld. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Appellant Sarla Devi has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2009, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2 Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Case No.4-II/2006, titled as Sarla Devi versus Mahinder Pratap & Others, arising out of a complaint registered, under Sections 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) read with Section 34 of the .

2. Vide judgment dated 22.01.2009, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents, for the offences punishable, under Sections 500 and 506 IPC, read with Section 34 .

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

4. 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:-
4.1. Complainant Sarla Devi has filed a complaint, under Sections 500, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against the respondent disclosing therein that she, along with her child, is residing in village Kandhera, as her husband is working in a private sector in Uttrakhand.
4.2. According to the complainant, she, as well as, her family members are being harassed by some persons and they used to threaten her, upon which, a complaint was made by her on 15.08.2004 and by her husband on 06.09.2004, to Deputy Commissioner, Kangra.
4.3. For inquiring the matter, on 10.12.2004, the officials of Revenue Department were to visit the spot and the complainant, as well as, the persons, against whom, the complaint was made, were informed, in this regard.
4.4. Since, the complainant was living alone at home, as such, she had called her brother-in-law Bishan Dass to her home, so that, he could interact with the revenue officials. Thereafter, at about 3.00 p.m., when the officials have returned back, accused persons, after hatching criminal conspiracy, started abusing her and stated that neither they, nor other villagers had encroached upon the Government land and why she had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner and why the revenue officials came to the spot. When the other persons were abusing the complainant, then, Bishan Dass, also reached there, who had tried to intervene.
4.5. On hearing abuses Jhonfi Ram and Uttam Chand also reached there. Jhonfi Ram also tried to pacify the accused persons, as, they were quarreling with a women, upon which, they got furious and accused No.1, pointing towards the complainant, had uttered the words, ‘Tu Jhonfi Ram ke sath fasi hui hai or tum dono Badmashiyan karte ko’. Thereafter, accused No.2, also stated that ‘Mahinder tum thik bol rahe ho ki Sarla Devi Jhonfi Ram ke sath fasi hui hai’.
4.6. It is the further case of the complainant that she saved herself with great difficulty and while leaving the spot, accused persons threatened to eliminate her, as well as, her family members. Thereafter, on 28.12.2024, accused No.3, also made a comment against the complainant, when she was returning back from fair price shop, by saying that she i