Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.S. Guleria
For the Respondents: Dhiraj Thakur

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:20645-DB

Cr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010.

Reserved on: 07.03.2026.

Date of decision: 30.05.2026

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant.

Vers us Hans Raj and another t …Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

Yes.

For the Appellant. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondents: Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

i State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of respondents, vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 8/2009, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Hans Raj and another in case FIR No. 182/2008, dated 09.10.2008, registered under Section 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The FIR No. 182/2008 (Ext. PW10/B) was regPistered on the basis of statement of Gopal Singh (PW-14), made un.der Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW10/A) to PW-28 SI Dharam Singh on the spot on 09.10.2008 at about 12:30 P.M., wherein he had stated that on 08.10.2008, he (PW-14), being driver of Jeep bearing registration No. HP32-2441 along with his compa nions Chaman Lal (PW-15), Karam Singh (not examined) and dreceased Hem Raj, at about 9:00 P.M. was going to Rohanda Temple to attend Jagran. At about 9:30 P.M., when they reached at Kulashi, respondents Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar came on red coloured motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-33-A-3846, who had consumed little liquor, and stopped after reaching near the Jeep and started abusing Gopal Singh (PW-14). In the meanwhile, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal came behind them, i.e., Rohanda side on a Hwithout number yellow coloured motorcycle and he (PW-14) was well acquainted with all of them. When they were asked not to abuse, Hans Raj and Ramesh Kumar started beating him, i.e., Gopal Singh (PW-14) with fists and leg blows and by that time his companions, Chaman Lal (PW-15), Karam Singh and Hem Raj also came out of the Jeep and PW- 14 Gopal Singh also came out of his driving seat, thereupon all four persons (motorcyclists) attacked all of them and Hans Raj took out knife from his pocket and stabbed in the chest of Hem Raj. HemP Raj fell down on the road and his clothes were soaked with blood oo.zing out from his chest. Ramesh Kumar pushed Gopal Singh (PW-14) below the road and when he reached back on the road, Hans Raj, Ramesh Kumar, Vineet @ Vicky and Ankit Jamwal fled from the spot on their motorcycles. At the time of quarrel, headlights of Jeep were on and, therefore, he (PW-14) identified all four quarreling arssailants. He (PW-14) immediately reported the incident to Police Station through his phone and Chaman Lal and Karam Singh boarded injured Hem Raj in the Jeep to take him to Rohanda for his treatment. On the way, Karam Singh pointed out that Hem Raj had died, whereupon he (PW-14) drove back the vehicle to the spot, where quarrel had taken place and waited for police. In this quarrel, PW-14 Gopal Singh, Karam Singh and Chaman Lal were also sustained Hinjuries.

3. According to prosecution case, GD entry No. 2(A), dated 09.10.2008 (Ext. PW17/A) was recorded at 12:15 A.M. (00:15 hours) in Police Station Gohar, on the basis of telephonic information received from PW-14 Gopal Singh, S/O Sh. Sohan Singh, whereby it was informed that Hem Raj, S/O Sh. Beli Ram has been murdered near Badu by companions of Vicky, whereupon after recording entry in Daily Diary Report, PW-28 SI/SHO Dharam Singh along with ASI ShakPti Chand (PW- 10), HC Khem Chand (PW-7), HHC Ghanshayam (PW.-8), HHG Murari Lal and HHG Chet Ram left the Police Station in official vehicle driven by driver constable Virender Kumar (PW-12) to the spot along with constable Chuni Lal on motorcycle bearing registration No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAVivek Singh Thakur, Ranjan Sharma, JJState of Himachal Pradesh – AppellantVersusHans Raj – RespondentCr. Appeal No. 349 of 2010

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