2026:HHC:15754 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.338 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ……...Appellant Versus Anju Bala and Another …....Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Ms. Shalini Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant criminal appeal under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2024, under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 34 of the IPC, whereby learned trial Court acquitted both the respondents (hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused’) from the commission of offences in question. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant-State, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is that learned trial Court has 2026:HHC:15754 2 fallen in grave error while appreciating the evidence in right perspective. While making this Court peruse evidence led on record by the prosecution, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that though prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed offence punishable under aforesaid provisions of law, but yet learned trial Court, for no cogent and convincing reason, proceeded to acquit the accused. In nutshell, case of the prosecution, as emerges from the pleadings as well as other record made available to this Court reveals that on 27.01.2024, complainant PW.1-Sunil Kumar submitted written complaint Ext. P-1/PW.1 at Police Station Nadaun, alleging therein that he is Pradhan of his Gram Panchayat. He alleged that last night, there was Mundan ceremony in his house and in the evening time, while they were washing utensils, near Shani Dev temple alongside the road, accused Anju Bala and her daughter Ashima came there on scooty and started fighting and arguing with him in front of everyone. Complainant alleged that above named accused called him ‘Julaha Pradhan’ and they also made caste related remarks. Complainant alleged that his friend Balwant Singh was also present there, who witnessed the incident. One Rajat Dev was also claimed to be present on the spot. Complainant alleged that both the accused misbehaved with him and they were saying that he was from Julaha caste and they will teach him a lesson. He alleged that accused 2026:HHC:15754 3 proclaimed that they will kill his family and burn him alive. In afore background, FIR Ext.P-2/PW.1, was lodged in the Police Station Nadaun against the accused. Since case was registered under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, investigation was handed over to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohin Dogra, vide order of Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur Ext.P-2/PW.6. Since aforesaid officer was transferred, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nitin Chauhan, was appointed as Investigating Officer, vide order of Superintendent of Police, Ext.P-1/PW.6. Afore Officer, after having conducted investigation, presented Challan in the competent Court of law, which prima facie being satisfied that accused named in the charge-sheet have committed offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 34 of the IPC, proceeded to frame charge against them under the aforesaid provisions of law, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined nine witnesses, whereas accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed innocence. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties, held accused not guilty of their having committed offence punishable under aforesaid provisions law and 2026:HHC:15754 4 accordingly acquitted them. In the afore background, appellant-State has approached this Court through instant appeal, praying therein for conviction of accused, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court. 4. Though in the case at hand, prosecution examined nine witnesses, but to determine the correctness of judgment laid challenge in the instant proceedings, statements made by PW.1-Sunil Kumar, PW.2-Dev Raj and PW.3-Balwant Singh, would be material. Remaining witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are formal in nature, therefore, are not relevant for adjudication of present appeal. 5. Complainant PW.1-Sunil Kumar deposed that he is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Ghaloon and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He deposed that on 25.01.2024 at about 8:00/8:15 p.m., he received a telephone call from accused Anju Bala that her husband was quarreling with her after consuming liquor. Complainant told her that there was function in his house, so he could not come. On 25.01.2024 there was Hawan/Pooja at the house of the complainant and on the next day there was Mundan ceremony of the son of his brother. He deposed that on 26.01.2024 at about 9:45 a.m., when they were busy in Mundan ceremony, accused Anju Bala and her daughter Ashima came there and both misbehaved with him and proclaimed that they will teach him a lesson and 2026:HHC:15754 5 then left the spot. He further deposed that at about 11:00 a.m., complainant received a telephone call from Police Station to come there, as accused Ashima had moved a complaint against him regarding molestation. He deposed that when he went to Police Station, he also filed an application regarding afore incident. He deposed that at about 7:00 p.m., while he along with other person was washing utensils on the side of the road, near the temple, both the accused persons came on scooty and stopped there and they stated “Dekh Tere Ko Maja Chakha Diya Aur Jhoothe Case Main Fasa Diya”. He deposed that then accused Anju Bala became hyper and said “Rajpooton Ko Chhod Kar Tujh Julahe Ko Pradhan Banaya” and accused Ashima said “Tu Julaha Hai Tu Pradhani Ke Kabil Na Hai, Pradhani Se Istipha De Do”. He further deposed that he became nervous and sat there and then accused persons went away from the spot. He deposed that persons, present at the spot, consoled him and offered him water. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he said to accused Anju Bala “Maine Theka Na Liya Hai, Main Bika Hua Pradhan Na Hun”. He denied that accused persons came to his house at 9:00 a.m. He also denied that he repeated the afore-stated words to them. He denied that accused persons had videographed that incident and he tried to break their mobile phone. He denied that on 26.01.2024, when accused Ashima was going to work, he molested her. While admitting factum with regard to FIR lodged against him 2026:HHC:15754 6 in the Police Station Nadaun, afore witness denied that he pressurized the accused through the Police, to settle the matter. He stated that he has no knowledge that in FIR lodged by accused, Ashima was medically examined. 6. Though PW.2-Dev Raj corroborated the version put forth by PW.1-complainant with regard to function at his house as well as of his washing utensils near the temple at 7:00/7:15 p.m., however, he stated that accused Anju Bala said “Rajpooton Ko Chhod Kar Julaha Pradhan Banaya, Badi Galti Kar Di”. This witness also deposed that accused Ashima said “Tu Julaha Pradhani Ke Layak Na Hai, Istipha De Do, Ham Maja Chakhayenge Tujhko, Tujh Ko Jel Main Band Kara Dainge, Tujh Ko Jala Dainge”. In cross-examination, afore witness while admitting that he is distantly related to the complainant, denied that the complainant is related to him. He admitted that complainant is from his caste. He stated that at the time of incident he, complainant, Rajat, Balwant, Rajesh and family members of the complainant were present on the spot. He further stated that cook, hired by the complainant, was also present there. 7. PW.3-Balwant Singh Verma also deposed that he is Computer Operator in BDO Office Paragpur and on 26.01.2024, while he was going for his personal work and had reached near the temple on the side of the road, Pradhan met him, who was washing utensils. He deposed that accused persons came on scooty and became hyper. Accused Anju Bala 2026:HHC:15754 7 stated that “Tu Pradhan Rajputon Kee Seat Par Julaha Ko Pradhan Banakar Galti Kar Di Hai” and accused Ashima said “Tu Julaha Pradhan Tere Ko Iss Seat Se Hat Jana Chahiye”. In his cross-examination, afore witness stated that Pradhan is known to him as he is his neighbourer. He stated that he has no relation in village Ghaloon, rather his village is at a distance of half kilometer from the village of Pradhan. He deposed that there were 5-6 persons present at the spot. He personally knew the persons present at the spot, i.e. Rajat, Rajesh, Dev Raj and Pradhan. He deposed that he had never visited the house of Pradhan. 8. If the version put forth by afore witnesses is read in conjunction, juxtaposing each other, though all the witnesses corroborated each other’s version with regard to function at the house of the complainant as well as factum of his washing utensils on the relevant date and time, but version put forth by these witnesses with regard to alleged casteist remarks, if any, made by accused are totally contradictory and inconsistent to each other. On perusal of FIR and statement of witnesses, this Court finds that only allegation against accused persons is regarding caste related remarks made by them to the complainant. Ext.P-1/PW.1 is the first version of the complainant, given to the Police, on the basis of which FIR was lodged. Perusal of complaint Ext.P-1/PW.1 suggested that the complainant reported that in the evening time, they were washing 2026:HHC:15754 8 utensils near Shani Dev Temple and in the meantime, accused Anju and her daughter Ashima came on scooty and started misbehaving, scuffling and arguing with him in front of everyone. While giving statement to Police, complainant stated that accused said to him “Julaha Pradhan”. His friend Balwant Singh, who also witnessed the incident, intervened and saved him. This witness also deposed to the Police that accused persons also misbehaved with Rajat Dev and accused persons were saying “Pradhan Tu Julaha Hai Aur Tujhe To Ham Sabak Sikhayenge Aur Tere Parivar Ko Bhi Marenge Aur Tum Sabhi Julahon Ko Jinda Jala Dainge”. 9. During investigation, supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 07.02.2024, in which he deposed that accused persons have not abused him. He further stated that accused persons had also not threatened him and his family members and also not said that they will burn him alive. In this statement, he also changed the nature of the abuses, as disclosed by him in complaint Ext.P-1/PW.1. If the aforesaid version of the PW.1, as recorded in his statement given to the Police, and thereafter in supplementary statement, is perused juxtaposing version put forth by him during trial, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that on each and every step, complainant attempted to improve his version, but in that process, he made a lot of contradictions in his statements. While deposing before the learned trial Court, he stated that 2026:HHC:15754 9 accused persons said that “Dekh Tere Ko Maja Chakha Diya Aur Jhoothe Case Main Fasa Diya”. He further stated that then accused Anju Bala became hyper and said “Rajpooton Ko Chhod Kar Tujh Julahe Ko Pradhan Banaya” and accused Ashima said “Tu Julaha Hai Tu Pradhani Ke Kabil Na Hai, Pradhani Se Istipha De Do”. His aforesaid version is totally in contradiction of his initial statement given to the Police, which was further attempted to be improved by recording supplementary statement of complainant. Abuses narrated by the complainant in complaint Ext.P-1/PW.1 and in the Court are totally different. His testimony in the Court regarding the nature of the abuses, is not consistent with his previous version put forth in the complaint Ext.P-1/PW.1. Moreover, this Court finds that the alleged incident had actually happened on 26.01.2024, whereas FIR came to be lodged on 27.01.2024 at 2:58 p.m. No explanation worth credence ever came to be led on record qua delay in lodging FIR. Complainant is not a rustic villager, rather he is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. 10. PW.2-Dev Raj, who is cited as an eye witness, also improved his version regarding the nature of the abuses, disclosed by him during investigation. Moreover, nature of the abuses, given by the accused persons are totally different from the nature of abuses narrated by afore witness. When afore witness was confronted with his previous statement regarding 2026:HHC:15754 10 his aforesaid deposition in the Court, he was unable to render any explanation. His statement is not consistent as far as nature of abuses with complainant PW.1 and with his previous statement recorded during investigation are concerned. Similarly, another eye witness, examined by the prosecution, PW.3-Balwant Singh, stated that both the accused persons became hyper and accused Anju Bala said “Tu Pradhan Rajputon Kee Seat Par Julaha Ko Pradhan Banakar Galti Kar Di Hai” and accused Ashima said “Tu Julaha Pradhan Tere Ko Iss Seat Se Hat Jana Chahiye”. Afore version of him is totally contrary to the version put forth by the complainant as well as other eye witness PW.2. 11. Leaving everything aside, PW.2 and PW.3 are closely related to the complainant, who, while lodging FIR, himself disclosed that PW.2 and PW.3 are his friends. When PW.3 was cross-examined, he stated that the complainant is known to him as he is his neighbour. In his further cross- examination, he deposed that distance of his village is half a kilometer from the village of the complainant. He stated that he never visited the house of complainant and he does not remember for which work he had gone to the place of incident on that day. Moreover, this Court finds that prior to lodging of FIR on the basis of which present prosecution came to be launched against the accused, accused had lodged FIR against complainant with regard to alleged act of molestation. Hence, this Court is persuaded to 2026:HHC:15754 11 agree with counsel representing respondent-accused that subsequent FIR lodged at the behest of complainant is counterblast to the FIR of the accused, which was admittedly lodged at first instance. 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 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.” 11. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity 2026:HHC:15754 12 in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and as such, same is upheld. However, having carefully scanned entire material adduced on record, this Court is not persuaded to confirm the finding returned by learned trial Court with regard to misconduct on the part of Public Prosecutor and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside, qua that part only. Ordered accordingly. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 11, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)