2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Romesh Verma, JJ
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Lal Singh – Respondent
Cr. A. No. 361/2015

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court's power to interfere is limited to cases where the trial court's judgment is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or where only one view of guilt is possible.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 506 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xii) - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference by High Court - An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded - However, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court - The scope of interference in the case of acquittal is very limited and the same would be warranted only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, is based on a misreading or omission to consider material evidence on record, and no two reasonable views are possible. (Paras 8-11)

(B) Sexual Assault - Testimony of prosecutrix - The conviction can be founded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration - Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence - However, a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and there is no presumption that the prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully - The testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence and be consistent; if the story is improbable and belies logic, it cannot be accepted. (Paras 13-18)

(C) Rape - Medical Evidence - Absence of injury - If there is forcible sexual intercourse, normally there are internal as well as external injuries on the victim - Absence of any sign of injury or struggle on the body of the prosecutrix and the respondent, and the FSL report showing no detection of blood or semen on the exhibits, are significant factors that create doubt about the prosecution's case. (Paras 61, 62, 73, 74)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-State challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in a case under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act. The prosecution alleged that on 10.9.2013, the respondent committed rape on the prosecutrix in a field near Kitgari Nallah after catching hold of her, pushing her, and tying her mouth. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law, leading to the registration of FIR. The trial court acquitted the respondent, and the State appealed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the evidence led by the prosecution was shaky, suspicious, and doubtful. There were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the disclosure of the incident. The medical evidence did not support the case as no injuries were found on the prosecutrix or the respondent, and the FSL report did not detect blood or semen. The place of occurrence, being a busy area with nearby houses and paths, made the alleged act improbable. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses was reliable and trustworthy, and whether the prosecution had proved its case for the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the evidence is not trustworthy, cogent, and convincing, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence, and the facts should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. As the prosecution failed to link the respondent to the alleged offence and the veracity of the complainant was doubtful, the acquittal was upheld.

Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge was upheld. The bail bonds of the respondent were discharged. (Paras 79-82) Dissenting Opinion: None. The judgment was a unanimous decision of the Division Bench.