IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.199 of 2014 Date of Decision: 01.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …….Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar @ Billa & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. For the Respondents: Mr. Tarun K. Brakta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure at the behest of appellant-State, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No.43-II/2009, whereby learned Court below held the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) not guilty of their having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code . 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution, as emerge from the material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that person namely Tarveez Singh (in short “complainant”) gave a statement to the Police on 07.01.2009, on the basis of which rapat Ext.PW5/A was came to be entered, alleging therein that on 06.01.2009 at about 06:30 p.m., while he was returning home after having finished his work and had reached at Balla, accused met him there and hurled abuses under the influence of liquor. Complainant alleged that when he asked the accused to stop abusing him, they assaulted and gave him beatings, as a result thereof, he suffered multiple injuries. He alleged that accused Billa @ Pawan Kumar gave fist blows on his face, as a result thereof, his four teeths were broken. He alleged hat after having heard his cries, his father Veero Ram and brothers Om Prakash Singh and Prabhat Singh came on the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. He also alleged that accused also assaulted his father. 3. After having recorded the statement of the complainant, FIR Ext.PW-3/A came to be registered against the accused and thereafter, the complainant was medically examined pursuant to application (Ext. PW-8/B). The medical examination was conducted by Dr. Satish Pal (PW-1), who prepared the MLCs Ext. PW-1/A and Ext. PW-2/A. Besides above, police also received X-ray Ext.P-1. ASI 3 Geeta Prakash (PW-8) carried out the investigation of the case and prepared the spot map Ext.PW-8/A. 4. After completion of investigation, Police presented challan in the competent Court of law, which after having found prima- facie case against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, charged them under aforesaid provisions of law, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, despite sufficient opportunities, accused failed to lead evidence in defence. 6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence collected on record by the parties, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In afore background, appellant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the conviction of the accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. 4 Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the appellant-State, is that Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, accused, who have committed offences under relevant provisions of law, have been wrongly acquitted. Mr. Banshtu, while referring to statements of PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6, stated that these witnesses corroborated the version put-forth by the complainant (PW-3) and as such, Court below wrongly arrived at a conclusion that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. He submitted that otherwise also, medical evidence adduced on record clearly proves the injuries suffered by the complainant in the alleged incident. Hence, there was no scope left, if any, for the trial Court to acquit the accused. 8. To the contrary, Mr. Tarun K. Brakta, learned counsel for the accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. He submitted that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced on record to prove the guilt of the accused that on the date of alleged incident, complainant was given beatings by the accused. He submitted that since prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while acquitting the accused. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the 5 judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 10. PW-3 (complainant), stated that while he was given beatings by the accused, one Subhah Singh came on the spot and rescued him. However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, above named Subhash Singh never came to be examined. In his cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that he moved a written complaint to the Police Station, but copy of the same was not found on the case file. While stating that he is not drunker, he admitted that criminal case is pending against him, which was initiated at the behest of the accused. While stating that his house is situated 1 ½ Kms away from the place of incident, he admitted that abadi is situated near the place of incident. He also admitted that no person from such abadi came on the spot at the time of incident. While admitting that litigation was pending inter se him as well as the accused, he admitted that he had not handed over any broken tooth to the police. 11. Father of the complainant, who came to be examined as PW-4, deposed that on 06.01.2009 at about 06:30 p.m., he heard noise of quarrel and thereafter, he along with his sons Om Prakash and Prabhat Singh reached on the spot and found the complainant in unconscious condition. Most importantly, he stated that no other person was found at the place of incident, rather complainant told him 6 that accused assaulted the complainant and broke his tooth. He also admitted that Police did no find any tooth on the spot. In his cross- examination, he admitted that complainant used to consume liquor, but on the date of alleged incident, he had not consumed any liquor. While denying the suggestion put to him that complainant himself loosened the teeth, he admitted that twelve houses are situated between his house and place of incident. While denying the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated due to enmity, he admitted that villagers had moved a complaint against the complainant that he uses abusive language under the influence of liquor. Close scrutiny of statement made by afore witness though suggests that he had reached on the spot after having heard cries of the complainant, but he had no occasion to see the accused giving beatings to the complainant. 12. Prosecution also examined Prabhat Singh, brother of the complainant as PW-6. He deposed on similar lines as is deposed by PW-4. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the abadies are near the place of incident. While admitting that complainant consume liquor, he also stated that written complaint was moved to the Police Station, but no such complaint was found on the case file. 13. PW-5 Surinder Kumar, while proving the rapats Ext.PW-5/A to Ext.PW-5/C, categorically deposed, in his cross- examination, that complainant did not move a written complaint. 7 14. ASI Geeta Prakash, Investigating Officer, while deposing as PW-8, deposed that he prepared the spot map Ext.PW-8/A. While stating that statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C were recorded as per their version, he stated that accused were arrested and released on bail. He identified the signatures of SHO Sanjhi Ram. He deposed that after completion of investigation, case file was handed over to the SHO, who prepared the challan and presented in the Court against the accused. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no record to suggest that accused were under the influence of liquor. He also admitted that he could not find any broken teeth during the investigation. 15. If the entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution is perused in its entirety, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the accused that there is no eye witness, rather PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, who are otherwise interested witnesses, reached on the spot after the alleged beatings given to the complainant by the accused. Afore witnesses had no occasion, if any, to witness the incident of beatings. In their cross-examination, they categorically admitted that when they reached the spot, they found the complainant lying on the road in unconscious condition. Since afore witnesses had no occasion to see the alleged incident with their eyes, version put-forth by them rightly came to be discarded by the Court below, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. Perusal of 8 statement made by PW-3 is also not believable on account of material contradictions. He deposed that he did not consume liquor, whereas PW-4 and PW-6 admitted that complainant is a drunker. Complainant deposed that one Subhash also came on the spot, but as per prosecution story, Subhash was not present on the spot. Although name of one of the accused is also Subhash, but from the perusal of statement of the complainant, it appears that Subhash was independent person, who came on the spot after hearing noise and saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Similarly, complainant stated that he had moved a written complaint to the Police Station, whereas PW-5, who entered the rapat Ext. PW-5/A, denied the afore fact. 16. True it is that medical evidence adduced on record suggests that accused suffered injuries, but PW-1 and PW-2 (Medical Officers), during their cross-examination, categorically stated that injuries suffered by the complainant can be caused due to fall on hard surface. Most importantly, neither police nor the complainant or his family members could find out the broken teeth of the complainant on the spot. Moreover, complainant was found in unconscious condition near Khad, where possibility of concrete, stone etc. hard objects cannot be ruled out at the place of incident. Besides above, it has also come in evidence that relationship inter se complainant and the accused was inimical on account of pendency of civil as well as 9 criminal cases and as such, possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. On account of pendency of criminal and civil litigation inter se complainant and the accused, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to examine independent witnesses, which were otherwise available in plenty. However, for no cogent and convincing reasons not even a single independent witness ever came to be adduced on record. No doubt, version put-forth by the interested witnesses cannot be cannot be brushed aside, rather it carries same evidentiary value as that of independent witnesses, but certainly version put-forth by these witnesses is required to be taken into consideration with utmost care and caution because on account of previous animosity & inimical relation between the complainant and the accused, possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. 17. Leaving everything aside, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of all the material prosecution witnesses, and as such, version put-forth by them rightly came to be discarded by the Court below, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. 18. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645, wherein it has been held as under:- 10 “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686: 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy;..the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that “ no man is guilty until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses.” 19. Besides above, there is delay of more than 17 hours in lodging FIR and no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua delay in lodging FIR, which fact itself creates suspicion with regard to correctness of story put-forth by the prosecution. 20. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, which appears to have been passed on the 11 proper appreciation of facts, and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present appeal fails and dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01, 2026 (sunil)