Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence to Upset Concurrent Acquittal Absent Perversity: Himachal Pradesh HC - 2025-07-29

HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in 2004 Assault Case, Cites Limited Scope of Revisional Power

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has upheld the concurrent acquittal of several individuals in a 2004 assault case, reinforcing the principle that a revisional court cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate evidence unless the lower courts' findings are perverse or legally erroneous. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the State's revision petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned acquittals by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.

---

A Two-Decade Legal Battle

The case, State of H.P. vs Jai Krishan & Ors. , originated from a quarrel over the repair of a water channel ( Kuhl ) in village Nanahar on April 16, 2004. The police charged the respondents under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, and 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging they formed an unlawful assembly and grievously assaulted the complainant party.

After a full trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, acquitted all accused on June 27, 2009. The acquittal was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge, Kangra, on January 11, 2013, prompting the State to file the present revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, argued that the lower courts had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. It was contended that since the victims had sustained medically-proven injuries, their presence at the scene was established, and minor contradictions in their testimonies should not have led to an acquittal.

Conversely, Senior Advocate Mr. N.K. Thakur, representing the respondents, argued that both lower courts had taken a reasonable and plausible view of the evidence. He asserted that in the absence of any perversity, the High Court’s limited revisional jurisdiction should not be invoked to disturb the concurrent findings of fact.

Court's Analysis: Revisional Power is Not a Second Appeal

Justice Kainthla began the analysis by delineating the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda , the Court emphasized its role is to correct "a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law," not to re-evaluate evidence at length.

"The revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses, and it is not legally permissible."

Flaws Undermining the Prosecution's Case

The High Court found that the lower courts' decisions were not perverse but were based on several critical flaws in the prosecution's case:

1. Dubious First Information Report (FIR): The Court noted a serious discrepancy regarding the FIR. The application for medical examination, filed before the formal FIR was recorded, contained specific details about the assailants and the injuries inflicted. This suggested that the police already had information about a cognizable offence, rendering the subsequent formal statement inadmissible under Section 162 of the CrPC.

2. Lack of Independent Witnesses: Despite the incident occurring in a populated area with several houses nearby (including that of the village Pradhan), the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses. Instead, it relied on witnesses whose homes were several kilometers away, making their presence at the scene doubtful.

3. Witness Credibility and Enmity: The Court highlighted that the key prosecution witnesses were entangled in pre-existing civil and criminal litigation with the accused party. This established a motive for false implication and necessitated corroboration, which was absent. Furthermore, the main informant (PW-1) was declared hostile by the prosecution itself.

4. Unexplained Injuries on the Accused: A crucial factor was the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused party in the same incident, for which a cross-case had also been registered. This omission cast serious doubt on the prosecution's narrative of being the sole victims.

The Final Verdict

Concluding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused, and the appellate court was right to uphold that decision.

"The evidence on record was insufficient to prove the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Trial Court was justified in recording the acquittal, and the learned Appellate Court was justified in upholding the judgment of the learned Trial Court. No interference is required with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below," the order stated.

The dismissal of the revision petition brings a final close to the 21-year-old legal dispute, reaffirming the high threshold required for a higher court to overturn a finding of acquittal in its revisional capacity.