2025:HHC:44778 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 287 of 2014 Reserved on: 4.12.2025 Date of Decision: 20.12.2025. State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Gulshana Devi and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:44778 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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Satya Devi (PW5) is the co-owner of the land. Accused Gulshana Devi and her son Vinay Kumar had started construction of a house on the joint land. Informant Satya Devi obtained an injunction order from the court of the learned Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, HP, however, the accused made preparations to lay the lintel despite the issuance of the injunction order. The informant and her daughter, Anita Devi (PW6), went to the spot to request the accused not to carry out the construction. Accused Gulshana Devi, her son Vinay Kumar, Veena Devi and other persons abused the informant and questioned her right to stop the construction. Pawna Devi told the persons present to throw the informant into the nallah. Pawna Devi gave beatings to the informant. Veena, Gulshana Devi and Ambey also gave her beatings. Anita Devi tried to rescue the informant, but Gulshana Devi gave her beatings. The 3 2025:HHC:44778 informant and Anita Devi sustained injuries. The informant went to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police. The police recorded an entry (Ex.PW10/A) in the Police Station. An application (Ex.PW4/A) was filed for the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Karan Singh (PW4) medically examined Satya Devi and found multiple injuries on her person. He issued MLC (Ex.PW4/B). He also examined Anita Devi and found multiple injuries on her person, which could have been caused within 24 hours. He advised an X-ray. A fracture of the proximal phalanx of the 5th finger was detected on the X-ray. Hence, the nature of the injuries was stated to be grievous. MLC (Ex.PW4/C) and final opinion (Ex.PW4/D) were issued. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW11/A) after the receipt of the medical opinion. HC Ashok Kumar (PW12) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW12/A). He filed an application (Ex.PW12/B) and obtained the copies of Jamabandi and Tatima (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B). He seized the discharge slip. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 4 2025:HHC:44778 3. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW1) went through the X-rays and issued the report. Krishan Pal (PW2) and Anita Devi (PW6) are the eyewitnesses. Dr Karan Singh (PW4) medically examined the informant and Anita Devi. Satya Devi (PW5) is the informant. Balak Ram (PW7) is the witness to the recovery of the documents. Des Raj (PW8) issued the copies of Jamabandis and Tatima. Tilak Raj (PW9) witnessed the seizure of the documents. Ravinder Chand (PW10) proved the entry in the daily diary. Yoginder Pal (PW11) registered the FIR. HC Ashok Kumar (PW12) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They stated that they were innocent, and a false FIR 5 2025:HHC:44778 was lodged against them. They examined Surinder Kumar (DW1) in their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the informant’s version that a fresh construction was being raised was not correct. Shops had already been constructed on the land. The land was partitioned, and the place where the construction was being raised fell into the share of Parshinda, father-in-law of Gulshana Devi and grandfather of the accused Ajay. The informant was an aggressor because she went to the spot to prevent the accused from raising construction. Veena Devi did not support the prosecution's case and admitted the defence version that lintel had already been laid. All these circumstances made the prosecution's case doubtful. Hence, the accused were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 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 erred in appreciating the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were discarded for untenable reasons. 6 2025:HHC:44778 The learned Trial Court assumed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and did not appreciate the significance of the civil suit and injunction order, which formed the motive for the commission of the crime. The statement of Krishan Pal was admissible as part of res gestae. The enmity could not have been used to discard the prosecution's case because the enmity is a double- edged weapon. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside. 8. I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Gurmeet Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused. 9. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material on record. The informant’s testimony was duly corroborated by Anita Devi, who had sustained injuries in the incident. The medical evidence also corroborated their testimonies. Enmity could not have been used to discard the prosecution's version because the enmity 7 2025:HHC:44778 also furnishes a motive for the commission of the crime. Learned Trial Court had taken a view which could not have been taken by any person. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside. 10. Mr Gurmeet Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, submitted that the land is shown to be in possession of the father-in-law of the accused Gulshana Devi. She had a right to raise a construction over it. The informant had no right to visit the spot to stop the construction. She was the aggressor. The learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused. This Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 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: 8 2025:HHC:44778 (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: “12. 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. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed: “12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappav. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ 9 2025:HHC:44778 Balram @ Balmukund v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Des Raj (PW8) issued a copy of Jamabandi (Ex.PW7/A) and Tatima (Ex.PW7/B) in which Prasinda is shown to be in cultivating possession of the land. Satya Devi (PW5) admitted in her cross-examination that the land was partitioned as per the possession. She admitted that a cowshed existed on the spot, which was in possession of Prashinda. Anita Devi (PW6) also admitted that Gulshana Devi is the daughter-in-law of Parsinda and Vinay is the son of Gulshana Devi. She admitted that an application for partition was filed by her, and the land was partitioned as per possession. She also admitted that Parshinda was in possession of the land. 16. The statements of these witnesses and the entry in the copy of Jamabandi show that Parshinda Ram was in possession of the land. The land was partitioned, and the possession was kept intact. It means that Parshinda was in 10 2025:HHC:44778 possession of the land. Gulshana Devi is the daughter-in-law of Prashinda, and she would also be in possession of the land as the daughter-in-law of Prashinda. The possession is also established from the fact that a cowshed existed where the shops were being constructed. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the land was in possession of the accused, and the informant was not justified in stopping the construction. 17. Satya Devi (PW5) stated that she had obtained an injunction order from the Court. Krishan Pal (PW2) stated in his cross-examination that the civil suit was dismissed. Even if the Civil Court had issued an injunction order, the remedy of the informant was to approach the Civil Court for the violation of the order and not to take the law into her own hands. 18. Krishan Pal (PW2) stated in his examination-in- chief that he was told about the beatings of his mother and wife. He specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the incident. It was submitted that the testimony of this witness was admissible as res gestae; however, there is no evidence that Satya Devi and Anita Devi 11 2025:HHC:44778 had narrated the incident to Krishan Pal at or about the time when the incident had taken place. This was essential because the prosecution is seeking to rely upon Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, which only admits the statements that are part of the same transaction, and Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden of proving the fact which makes another fact admissible is upon the person who wishes to adduce the fact. Since, in the present case, the prosecution wanted to adduce his statement under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden was upon the prosecution to prove that the statement was made at or about the time of the transaction. There is no evidence that the narration was part of the same transaction; hence, no reliance can be placed upon the statement of Krishan Pal. 19. Veena (PW3) did not support the prosecution's case. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied that she was present in her home on 1.7.2010 at about 5.00 PM. She was not aware that Satya Devi and Anita Devi had objected to the construction, and they were beaten. She denied the previous statement recorded by the police. She denied that she 12 2025:HHC:44778 was making a false statement. The testimony of this witness does not corroborate the prosecution's version, and no advantage can be derived from her testimony. 20. Suresh Kumar (DW1) stated that he had laid the lintel in 2009. He had completed the plastering work in July 2010. No altercation occurred in his presence. The statement of this witness is duly corroborated by the site plan (Ex.PW12/A), in which shops were shown at Mark-P, where the lintel had already been laid. This site plan was prepared on 4.7.2010, three days after the incident. HC Ashok Kumar (PW12) admitted in his cross-examination that the shop had already been constructed at the time of his arrival on the spot. This corroborates the defence version that the shops had already been constructed and falsifies the prosecution version that the lintel was being laid and the incident occurred when Satya Devi and Anita Devi went to prevent the laying of the lintel. 21. Dr. Karan Singh (PW4) medically examined Satya Devi and Anita Devi. He found that they had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by means of 13 2025:HHC:44778 kicks and fist blows. He admitted in his cross-examination that injuries could also be caused by way of fall on a hard surface. Therefore, the medical evidence also does not provide any unequivocal corroboration of the informant’s testimony. 22. There is no other evidence to corroborate the prosecution's case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view which could have been taken based on the material placed before it, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court even if another view is possible. 23. No other point was urged. 24. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 25. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondents/ accused are directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be 14 2025:HHC:44778 effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondents/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. 27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 20th December, 2025 (Chander)