2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Ranjan Sharma, JJ
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Hans Raj – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010

An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse or ignores material evidence. Conviction requires reliable, cogent evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent witness testimonies and flawed investigations entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Criminal Appeal against acquittal - Murder - Prosecution case revolving around identification of assailants - Reliability of eye-witness testimonies - Material contradictions in statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and supplementary statements - Credibility of investigating agency - Delay in recording statements - Failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 29, 37, 43, 87)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 161 Cr.P.C. - Testimony of witnesses - If evidence of eye-witnesses is unreliable and contradictory regarding the identity of assailants and the sequence of events, conviction cannot be sustained - Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof - Duty of prosecution to establish case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 37, 52, 75, 87)

(C) Appeal against acquittal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the decision is perverse or ignores material evidence which would necessitate a different conclusion - Reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 90)

Facts of the case:
The state challenged the acquittal of two individuals charged with murder. The prosecution alleged that the victims were attacked by four persons, but later changed its stance, identifying only two as the actual assailants and claiming the others were rescuers. Key witnesses were declared hostile, and there were significant inconsistencies regarding the timing of police arrival, the recording of the initial report, the recovery of the weapon of offense, and the forensic evidence. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the investigation flawed and the prosecution's evidence unreliable.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation was conducted in a sketchy and suspicious manner. The witnesses frequently changed their versions, and there was a significant and unexplained delay in recording statements. Forensic reports failed to link the seized items conclusively to the crime or the accused. Inconsistencies in the testimony of official witnesses and the failure of eye-witnesses to maintain a consistent account rendered the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully proved the involvement of the accused in the commission of murder beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's order of acquittal was based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution's evidence is marred by material discrepancies, unexplained delays in investigation, and unreliable testimony from witnesses who frequently shift their core narrative, the court cannot sustain a conviction. Suspicion alone is insufficient, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.