( 2025:HHC:38119 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 82 of 2012 Reserved on: 04.11.2025 Decided on: 13.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Het Ram & Anr. …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) laying challenge to judgment, dated 13.10.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 2011, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 177- I of 2006/122-II of 2008 has been set aside and the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the accused persons”) were acquitted 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.06.2006, at about 6:00 P.M., Bhagwan Dass (complainant) alongwith his wife Sarla Devi was present at home. In the meanwhile, Het Ram and Jamuna Devi entered his house and gave beatings to him and his wife. As per the allegations, Het Ram was armed with ‘danda’ and he assaulted the complainant and his wife with ‘danda’ and on hearing hue and cries, Lal Singh and Thakur Singh came to the spot. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered against the accused persons. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and site plan was prepared. The injured were got medically examined. After completion of all the codal formalities, challan was presented against the accused persons in the learned trial Court. 3. On finding prima facie case against the accused persons, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 453, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC were framed against them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution 2 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) examined as many as 06 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not examine any witness in their defence. 5. The learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2010, convicted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved, the accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court and vide judgment dated 13.10.2011, the appeal filed by them was allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2010, passed by learned trial Court was set aside. Hence the present appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 6. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents/accused and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the learned First Appellate Court has discarded the well reasoned and consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses on 3 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) material points and has not properly valuated the evidence on record. He further contended that the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly held that there is delay in lodging the FIR and an explanation put forth by the complainant in this regard was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. With these submissions, he prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court and acceptance of the instant appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused persons contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed against them. 9. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal as an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. In Dhanapal vs. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the judgment of 4 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said: “5. …It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of ac- quittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-es- tablished rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judg- ment of acquittal passed by the trial court Thus, the Ap- pellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Which had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of ap- peal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal." 10. In N. Vijaykumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and secondly, the presumption of his innocence is further strengthened by the judgment of his acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “20. ……... By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 has laid down the general princi- ples regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judg- ment which is relevant reads as under: 5 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding pow- ers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double pre- sumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the pre- sumption 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. Sec- ondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.” 11. In Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 12. Equally settled is the proposition that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court, when it agrees with the view of the trial 6 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) Court on the evidence, to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court and the expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court, the decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (Refer: Girijanandini Devi and Others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124). 13. Therefore, the instant appeal has to be decided in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. In the case in hand, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses. However, the prosecution case mainly rests upon the statements of PW-1 Bhagwan Dass (complainant), PW-2 Sarla Devi, PW-3 Dr. Shekhar Kapoor and PW-4 Lal Singh. 14. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record led by the prosecution and from the closure scrutiny thereof, it has become clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond doubt. From the perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses it has come on record that accused No. 1, Het Ram had registered a complaint under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IPC against the complainant, wherein, it was alleged that accused No. 2 Jamna Devi was kidnapped by the complainant and other persons and 7 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) was raped. Hence, it has been established that there was previous enmity between the parties. PW-1, Bhagwan Dass (complainant) has deposed that he and PW-2, Sarla Devi were given beatings on 20.06.2006 at about 06:00 p.m. The prosecution witnesses have also admitted that in the month of June, the day light remained upto 7:30/7:45 p.m. and the police station was at a distance of twenty kilometers. It has also been admitted by PW-6 HC Hari Singh, who was the Investigating Officer of this case that the house of the complainant was approachable by road and there remained frequent vehicular traffic on this road. The complainant also admitted that telephone connections were installed in the village. However, despite that no efforts were made by the complainant to lodge the report either in person or on telephone to the police on 20.06.2006. As per the prosecution case, the matter was reported to the police on 21.06.2006, when FIR was registered at Police Station, Banjar at 2:20 p.m. Hence, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging of the FIR and the learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that since there was unexplained delay of approximately twenty one hours, as such, it creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. 8 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) 15. Further, there are various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-2 and PW-3 have admitted that the complainants were running a loom, however, PW-1 denied this fact. PW-1 admitted that he had lodged a written complaint in the police station qua the said incident, but, no such application has been proved on the record. It has also been admitted that PW-4 Lal Singh and PW Thakur Singh were close relatives of the complainant. It has also come on the record that the village of the complainant had many houses, however, the prosecution has not made any efforts to examine any independent witness from such houses. As per the prosecution case, the danda Ex. P1 was produced by PW-1 and was taken into possession by the police in presence of Lal Singh and Thakur Singh and said recovery was allegedly effected on 22.06.2006 when the police came to the spot, however. PW-1 admitted that these witnesses never came to the spot after 20.06.2006. It had also been admitted that PW-4 was residing at a place far away from the house of the complainant, as such, he had no occasion to witness the occurrence. Moreover, PW-4 was the close relative of the complainant party. Although, it is settled law that conviction can form basis on the testimony of the 9 ( 2025:HHC:38119 ) complainant and there is no bar to rely upon the testimony of close relatives, however, keeping in view the previous enmity inter se parties and the contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Moreover, as per the testimony of PW-3, Dr. Shekhar Kapoor, injuries found on the person of the complainant, could be caused due to fall, which also creates doubt in the story of prosecution. 16. Therefore, in view of the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence led by the prosecution, it has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant-State has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality, much less, perversity in the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned First Appellate Court, as such, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge November 13, 2025 (raman) 10