IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.345 of 2014 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …….Appellant Versus Dilbagh Singh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Appellant: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 30.05.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No.21-II/2011, titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dilbagh Singh and others, whereby learned trial Court acquitted the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) from the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325/ 34 of IPC. 2. Precisely, the case of the prosecution, as emerges from the record, is that on 07.01.2011, complainant, Rohit Jamwal (PW-2) 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 lodged a report at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that on 07.01.2011, at about 11.AM, while he was going towards Police Station, persons namely Dilbagh Singh, Jarnail Singh and Jatinder Singh, who at the relevant time were standing outside the Police Station, restrained him and started giving him beatings. He also alleged that 10-12 other persons were also with them. While stating that on account of the beatings given to him, he suffered injuries on his teeth and ear, he alleged that he was rescued by the Police Officials standing outside the police station and thereafter accused succeeded in fleeing from the spot. Complainant further alleged that during scuffle, he also lost his gold chain. On the basis of aforesaid statement made by the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., police lodged the FIR Ex.PW2/A against the accused. Immediately, after loding of the FIR, police got the complainant medically examined from CHC, Palampur, where he was examined by Dr. Sunita Kashyap (PW-5). PW-6, Dr. Sandeep Rana, Medical Officer (Dental) Civil Hospital, Palampur, also examined the complainant and referred him to Dr. Sunita Kashyap. During investigation, police also prepared spot map Ex.PW5/A. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law against the accused for their having 3 committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 of IPC. 3. The learned trial Court, being satisfied that a prima-facie case exists against the accused, framed charges against them under Sections 341, 323, 325 / 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses, whereas accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 C.P.C., denied the case of the prosecution in toto and in defence, tendered FIR Ex. DX. 5. Learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 30.05.2014 acquitted the respondents-accused from offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 of IPC. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondents-accused after setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that judgment passed by learned trial Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, because there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution 4 suggestive of the fact that on the date of alleged incident, complainant was given beatings by the accused, named in the FIR, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries, however, learned trial Court completely ignored cogent and reliable evidence, as a result thereof, accused, who committed offences under the aforesaid provisions of law, stand acquitted. While making this Court peruse statements made by the prosecution witnesses, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that there are no material contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimonies, rather all the witnesses have stated in unison that on the date of alleged incident, complainant was given beatings by the accused and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for the Court below to acquit the accused, who otherwise deserved to be convicted under the relevant provisions of law. 7. To the contrary, Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel representing the respondents-accused, supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. He submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused had given beatings to the complainant. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. Though, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, but to ascertain the correctness of the judgment of 5 acquittal laid challenge in the instant proceedings, the statements made by PWs No.1 to 4 assume significance. PW-2, Complainant deposed that Manjit Singh, Dilbagh and Avtar Singh and other two persons were standing outside the Police Station, whose names, he does not know. He also deposed that he inadvertently recorded the name of Manjit Singh in the FIR. However, prosecution story is totally silent with regard to aforesaid aspect. There is no mention that who were 10-12 persons, who at the time of incident, were claimed to be standing outside the police station alongwith other police officials. Prosecution has tried to explain that complainant had wrongly mentioned the name of Manjit Singh and 10-12 persons in the FIR. If aforesaid version put forth by PW-2 is perused juxtaposing his initial statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered, it can be safely concluded that the complainant changed his version. It has come on record that there is enmity between the complainant and the accused party. Complainant himself admitted that on the same day, Manjit Singh, who is brother of one of the accused, had lodged FIR against him at about 12-12.45 PM. therefore, statement of this witness itself creates doubt with regard to correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that the testimony of an interested witness cannot be discarded merely on that ground and is 6 entitled to same weightage as that of an independent witness. However, where the statement of such witness is inherently shaky, inconsistent and replete with material contradictions, the Court is required to scrutinize the same with greater caution. 10. Interestingly, in the case at hand, complainant did not mention the name of Manjit Singh in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered. However name of Manjit Singh came to be introduced while recording his statement before the Court below. Moreover, complainant at the time of getting his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, on the basis of which, FIR came to be lodged, also alleged that he had lost his gold chain during scuffle, but prosecution story qua aforesaid aspect of the matter is totally silent, which certainly suggests that complainant has exaggerated his version with a view to falsely implicate the accused in the case at hand. He also stated that one Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh saved him from the clutches of the accused and he also mentioned their names while recording the FIR, but the names of Rakesh and Rajesh Kumar do not find mention in the FIR. The occurrence in the present case is stated to have been taken place in front of the police station and complainant himself admitted that it is just one minute walk to the police station, however, there is no explanation qua delay in lodging 7 the FIR. As per story of the prosecution, scuffle, if any, interse complainant and the accused took place at 11.45 AM, however matter was reported to police at 1.35 PM. 11. Investigating Officer, while appearing in the witness box as PW-8, deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses on the next day of occurrence without assigning any reason particularly when the witnesses were police officials and they were available at the police station on the day of occurrence, which further creates doubt with regard to the story put forth by the prosecution. There is another aspect of the matter that in the application Ex.PW7/A moved by the Investigating Officer for conducting the medical examination of the complainant Rohit Jamwal, the names of accused Dilbagh Singh and Manjit Singh were mentioned, which itself suggests that the complainant subsequently improved his statement, which act of him further creates doubt with regard to the story put forth by him. FIR Ex. DX has been lodged by Manjit Singh, whose name is stated to have been wrongly mentioned in the FIR lodged by the complainant at Police Station, Palampur and the present FIR lodged by the complainant appears to have been lodged just to counter the aforesaid FIR filed by Manjit Singh. In these circumstances, the possibility that the present FIR was lodged merely 8 as a counterblast to the FIR registered by Manjit Singh cannot be ruled out. 12. Leaving everything aside, complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses were not sure about the names and identity of the accused persons and no identification parade was ever conducted by the Investigating Officer to clarify that accused were the same persons who are alleged to have given beatings to the complainant on the relevant date, time and place. Since statement of the complainant is not trustworthy, statements of other prosecution witnesses may not be much help to the prosecution case. No doubt, medical evidence adduced on record suggests injuries, but once prosecution has not been able to connect accused with the offence alleged to have been committed by them, factum of inflicting injuries on the person of the complainant may not be of much relevance. Complainant during his cross-examination denied that while Manjit Singh rescued him and in that process he i.e. complainant sustained injuries, but since scuffle is admitted to have taken place at Maranda on the same day and complainant was also present there, therefore, possibility of sustaining such injuries by the complainant in that scuffle cannot be ruled out altogether. Moreover, the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses are largely stereotyped and appear to be omnibus in nature, without furnishing any convincing particulars 9 connecting the accused with the alleged assault. Consequently, their evidence does not inspire such confidence as would warrant interference with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. True, it is that minor contradictions and inconsistencies can be overlooked by the Court, but, while ignoring such contradictions and inconsistencies, Court need to ascertain whether there is any coherence and uniformity in the statements made by such witnesses. There may be contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to time and place but if story of the prosecution becomes doubtful on account of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements made by the witnesses, version put forth by such witnesses cannot be made basis to hold accused guilty of their having committed offence punishable under relevant provisions of law. 14. 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:- “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 10 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. 15. After perusing the statements of the prosecution witnesses as well exhibits placed on record, two views are possible in the present case and as such, the respondent-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of UP versus Ghambhir Singh & others, AIR 2005 (92) Supreme Court 2439, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if on the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- “6. So far as Hori Lal, PW-1 is concerned, he had been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it was only a matter of coincidence that while he was returning he witnessed the entire incident. The High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his testimony because he evidence clearly shows that he had an animus against the appellants. Moreover, his evidence was not corroborated by objective circumstances. Though it was his categorical case that all of them fired, no injury caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds were found on the person of the deceased. Apart from this PW-3 did not mention the presence of either PW-1 or PW-2 at the time of occurrence. All these circumstances do create doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their evidence is critically scrutinized. May be it is also possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution, but since the High Court, 11 on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded a finding in favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred.” 16. Reliance is also placed on judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 418, relevant para whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. [Vide Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808; State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180; Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242].” 17. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment reported in Pawan Kumar and Kamal Bhardwaj versus State of H.P., latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1150 has also concluded here-in-below:- “25. Moreover, when the occurrence is admitted but there are two different versions of the incident, one put forth by the prosecution and the other by the defence and one of the two version is proved to be false, the second can safely be believed, unless the same is unnatural or inherently untrue. 26. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the manner of occurrence, as pleaded by the defence, is not true. The manner of the occurrence testified by PW-11 Sandeep Rana 12 is not unnatural nor is it intrinsically untrue, therefore, it has to be believed. 27.Sandeep Rana could not be said to have been established, even if the prosecution version were taken on its face value. It was pleaded that no serious injury had been caused to PW- 11 Sandeep Rana and that all the injuries, according to the testimony of PW-21 Dr. Raj Kumar, which he noticed on the person of Sandeep Rana, at the time of his medical examination, were simple in nature. 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court, which is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, no interference is called for and accordingly, same is upheld. Record of learned trial Court be returned forthwith. 19. The present appeal fails and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending application (s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 10, 2026 (shankar)