Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3576 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Om Raj

2025-09-10

Rakesh Kainthla

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 & 504 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Bali Ram (PW1), was sitting outside his house on a chair on 19.7.2010 at 8:00 P.M. The accused Om Raj started abusing him without any reason. The informant requested the accused not to abuse him, but the accused caught hold of the informant by the neck and gave him beatings. The informant sustained injuries to his foot. Two buttons of his shirt were torn. He shouted for help. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) and Brijesh Kumar (PW2) rescued the informant from the accused. The informant called the police, and an entry No.77(A) was recorded in the daily diary. HC Dev Dutt (PW6) and HHC Ravi Kumar (not examined) went to the spot for verification. Bali Ram (PW1) made a statement (Ex. PW1/A) which was sent to the police station where F.I.R (Ex.PW6/A) was registered. HC Dev Dutt investigated the matter. He prepared a site plan (Ex. PW6/C). The informant produced a shirt which was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with three impressions of seal ‘A’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ex. PW1/B). Seal impression (Ex. PW6/D) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Sanjay after its use. An application (Ex. PW3/A) was filed for conducting the medical examination of informant Bali Ram. Dr. Manjeet Singh (PW3) conducted the informant’s medical examination and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by kicks and fist blows. He issued MLC (Ex. PW3/B). Statements of remaining prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. Dr. Manjeet Singh (PW3) conducted the informant’s medical examination and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by kicks and fist blows. He issued MLC (Ex. PW3/B). Statements of remaining prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Beli Ram (PW1) is the informant-victim. Brijesh Kumar (PW2) is an eyewitness. Dr. Manjeet Singh (PW3) conducted the medical examination of the victim. Saraswati Devi (PW4) is the daughter-in-law of the informant/victim. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) did not support the prosecution’s case. HC Dev Dutt (PW6) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that the informant falsely deposed against him because of a dispute over the path between them. He was innocent. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that many houses were located in the vicinity of the place of the incident. The Investigating Officer did not examine any independent witness to corroborate the informant’s testimony. The defence version that the accused was falsely implicated because of the dispute over the passage was probable. There were various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which made the prosecution’s case doubtful. Hence, the accused was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 of the IPC. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were discarded without any cogent reasons. Minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses were blown out of proportion. The Medical Officer proved that the informant had sustained injuries which could have been caused by kicks and fist blows. The accused did not claim in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were discarded without any cogent reasons. Minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses were blown out of proportion. The Medical Officer proved that the informant had sustained injuries which could have been caused by kicks and fist blows. The accused did not claim in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. that there was some dispute regarding the discharge of dirty water, but the learned Trial Court relied upon this fact. Learned Trial Court had travelled beyond the defence of the accused; therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by learned Trial Court dated 20.12.2012 be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, learned counsel for the respondent-accused. 9. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State, submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material placed on record. The statements of prosecution witnesses proved that the accused had given beatings to the informant with kicks and fist blows. This was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused based on some minor contradictions and the enmity. The contradictions were bound to come with the passage of time due to failure of memory, and the accused could not have been acquitted on the ground of contradictions alone. Enmity is a double-edged weapon, and it also furnishes the motive for the commission of crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with it. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court, on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc., are not intended to curtail the extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused, having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748], this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8) 8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence. 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 13. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. Beli Ram (PW1) stated that he was sitting outside his home on a chair in the veranda on 19.07.2010 at 8:00 P.M. when Om Raj came and abused him. He requested the accused not to abuse him, but the accused came to the veranda, caught hold of his neck and gave him beatings. He sustained injury on the middle toe, and the buttons of his shirt were torn. Rajinder and Brijesh Kumar came to the spot after hearing the noise. 15. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) stated that he was not aware of the incident. He was permitted to be cross- examined. He denied that he had heard the noise from the house of the informant and visited the spot. He denied that the accused gave beatings to informant Bali Ram. He denied the previous statement recorded by the police. 15. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) stated that he was not aware of the incident. He was permitted to be cross- examined. He denied that he had heard the noise from the house of the informant and visited the spot. He denied that the accused gave beatings to informant Bali Ram. He denied the previous statement recorded by the police. Therefore, the statement of this witness does not support the complainant’s version. 16. Brijesh Kumar (PW2) is the son of the informant. He stated that he was present in his home. The accused came to the house and abused the informant. The informant requested the accused not to abuse him, but the accused came to the veranda and gave beatings to the informant. The informant sustained injuries on his middle toe, and two buttons of his shirt were torn. 17. Saraswati Devi (PW4) stated that she was preparing food, and her father-in-law was sitting on a chair in the veranda. Om Raj came to the spot and abused the informant. She came out and saw that Om Raj had caught hold of the informant, and he was beating the informant. She and the informant cried. Rajinder and Brijesh Kumar came to the spot. The informant sustained injury on the middle toe. 18. The name of Saraswati Devi (PW4) was not mentioned in the F.I.R. or in the statement on oath made by the informant and Brijesh. She is the daughter-in-law of the informant and the sister-in-law of Brijesh. They would not have missed her name had she been present on the spot. The absence of her name in F.I.R. and the statement on oath make her presence highly doubtful, and the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting her testimony. 19. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. stated that there is a dispute between him and the informant over the path leading to the Well. The informant admitted in his cross- examination that there is a passage near his house leading to the Well. Brijesh (PW2) also admitted that there is a passage adjacent to his house leading to a well, which is located between his house and the house of the accused. He denied that there is a dispute over the passage. However, Rajinder Kumar (PW5) admitted in his cross- examination that the informant and accused Om Raj have a dispute regarding the passage. He denied that there is a dispute over the passage. However, Rajinder Kumar (PW5) admitted in his cross- examination that the informant and accused Om Raj have a dispute regarding the passage. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the relationship between the parties was strained. 20. Dr. Manjeet Singh (PW3) found the injury on the left foot, middle toe, with a fresh blood clot. He also found an injury on the lower back right side, but there was no contusion or abrasion. According to him, the injury suffered by the victim was simple and could have been caused by way of fist and kick blows. He also admitted that the injury mentioned by him could be caused by way of fall on a hard surface. The Medical Officer did not find any contusion or abrasion on any part of the informant’s body, and it is highly unlikely that only one injury on the left foot and another injury on the lower back on the right side would have been suffered in the beatings given to the informant. Thus, medical evidence casts a doubt on the prosecution’s version. 21. Learned Trial Court had noticed various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Beli Ram (PW1) stated that only one house was located near the place of the incident, whereas Saraswati (PW4) stated that ten houses were located on the spot. Brijesh Kumar (PW2) claimed that three houses were located on the spot. The victim stated that the place of the incident was not dark. Brijesh and Saraswati stated that the incident had taken place in the darkness. Brijesh stated that Beli Ram sustained bleeding injuries; however, the Investigating Officer did not find any blood stains. The clothes of the informant did not contain any blood stains. 22. It was submitted that these contradictions are not material and bound to come with time. There can be no dispute that memories fail with time and contradictions are bound to come; however, in the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of inimical witnesses, and the contradictions will assume significance. 23. The informant, Brijesh and Saraswati Devi, stated that the informant’s shirt was torn in the incident. The matter was reported to the police on the same day. HC Dev Dutt reached the spot on the same day. He recovered the shirt (Ex. P2). 23. The informant, Brijesh and Saraswati Devi, stated that the informant’s shirt was torn in the incident. The matter was reported to the police on the same day. HC Dev Dutt reached the spot on the same day. He recovered the shirt (Ex. P2). He admitted in his cross-examination that the shirt (Ex.P2) was not torn near the neck, its upper buttons were not broken, it was kept by the informant inside the house, and he (the informant) was not wearing the shirt. The cross-examination of the investigating officer makes the prosecution’s case highly doubtful. It is highly unlikely that the informant would have removed the shirt and kept it inside the house. The fact that the shirt was not found torn from the neck, and its upper buttons were not broken, will make the prosecution’s case highly suspect that the accused had caught hold of the informant by the neck, and the shirt was torn in the process. 24. Therefore, the circumstances on record made the prosecution’s case highly doubtful, and the learned Trial Court was justified in doubting the prosecution’s case. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal. 25. No other point was urged. 26. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and it is dismissed and so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 27. A copy of the judgment, along with records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.