2026:HHC:20399 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 2013 Reserved on: 01.4.2026 Decided on: 29.05.2026. State of Himachal Pradesh .…. Appellant Versus Kanshi Ram & others …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant /State : Mr Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr Malay Kaushal, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.II, Ghumarwin, District Bilapsur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:20399 under Sections 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, 325, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Parkash Chand (PW-2) was ploughing his field on 21.06.2009. His sister Sita Devi (PW-3) was spreading the seeds. Accused Kanshi Ram, his son Lucky, Happy, and Hakam Singh alias Kaku came to the field armed with sticks and iron rods. They abused the informant and inquired as to why the informant was ploughing the field. They gave beatings to the informant with sticks and iron rods. The informant sustained injuries. Sita Devi tried to intervene, and she was also beaten. The matter was reported to the police. The police recorded an entry (Ext.PW-10/A) in the daily diary and filed an application (Ext.PW-9/A) for the informant’s medical examination. Dr Priyanka (PW-9) examined Parkash Chand and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. She referred the 3 2026:HHC:20399 informant to the dental surgeon for an expert opinion. The dental surgeon did not find any evidence of fracture; hence, Dr Priyanka issued her final opinion (Ext.PW-9/D) that Parkash Chand had sustained a simple injury. She also examined Sita Devi and found that she had suffered multiple injuries. She was referred to a radiologist for the X-ray. Dr Bhangal (PW-6) went through the X-rays and found a fracture. Dr Priyanka issued her final opinion (Ext.PW-9/B) that the nature of the injury was grievous. F.I.R. (Ext.PW-8/H) was registered after the receipt of the medical opinion. HC Dev Dutt (PW-8) investigated the matter. He visited the spot, prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-8/A) and seized the sticks from Kanshi Ram and Anil Kumar vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version, and found after the investigation that Hakam Singh alias Kaku was not involved in the commission of an offence. Hence, a charge sheet was filed against Kanshi Ram, Anil Kumar @ Lakki and Bhagat Ram before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under 4 2026:HHC:20399 Sections 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Shashi Pal (PW-1), Sawaru Ram (PW-4) and Prakash Chand (PW-5) did not support the prosecution's case. Prakash Chand (PW-2) is the informant/victim. Sita Devi (PW-3) is an eyewitness/victim. Dr Bhangal (PW-6) went through the X-Rays and issued the report. Rikhi Ram (PW-7) took the X-ray. HC Dev Dutt (PW-8) investigated the matter. Dr Priyanka (PW-9) conducted the medical examination of the injured. Constable Raj Kumar (PW-10) proved the entry in the daily diary. Inspector Roshan Lal (PW-11) signed the F.I.R. 5. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. They claimed that witnesses had deposed falsely because of the enmity and the land dispute. They examined Prem Chand (DW-1) in their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the informant had materially improved upon his version. There were contradictions in the statement of the informant, and Sita Devi (PW-3), which made the prosecution’s case doubtful. Parkash Chand (PW-2) 5 2026:HHC:20399 stated that his tooth had dislocated, but no such tooth was discovered. The witnesses to the recovery have also not supported the prosecution's case. All these infirmities made the prosecution’s case doubtful. Therefore, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused. 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 had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The testimony of the defence witness was highly vague, and minor contradictions were blown out of proportion. The witnesses to the recovery admitted their signatures on the memo, and this aspect was ignored by the learned Trial Court. The accused had exceeded their right to private defence and could not have caused grievous injuries to the informant party. 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 Malay Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondents/accused. 6 2026:HHC:20399 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 prosecution witnesses had consistently stated that the accused had given beatings to the informant and his sister, Sita Devi (PW-3). The learned Trial Court considered the minor contradictions as significant, ignoring the fact that minor contradictions are bound to come with time due to the failure of memory. The mere fact that an independent witness had not supported the prosecution's case is not sufficient to discard it. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr Malay Kaushal, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, submitted that the statements of the informant and his sister Sita Devi contradicted each other on material aspects. It was not proved that the informant was in possession, and the learned trial Court had rightly held that the informant party was the aggressor. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and no interference is required with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding an 7 2026:HHC:20399 appeal against acquittal; 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: (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 8 2026:HHC:20399 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, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The 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. A similar view was taken in Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 89, wherein it was observed: “29. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, 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. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal: (a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record; (c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly 9 2026:HHC:20399 unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.’ (d) 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; (e) 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 (f) 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.” 15. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. The informant Parkash Chand (PW-2) stated in his cross-examination that the disputed area was allotted to Prem Chand in a family partition. He volunteered to say that Prem Chand had given a different land to Kanshi Ram. Sita Devi (PW-3) stated in her cross-examination that the disputed area was in possession of Parkash Chand, and earlier, her father and Parkash Chand used to cultivate the land. She further stated in her cross- examination by the learned defence counsel that she was not aware that Prem Chand had given his land to Kanshi Ram (accused No.1). Prem Chand (DW-1) stated that he had given the 10 2026:HHC:20399 land to Kanshi Ram after accepting ₹10,000/- from him. Thus, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the possession of the informant party was not established, and the accused were in possession of the land. 17. It is an admitted case of the informant that he was ploughing the land and his sister was spreading the seeds. When the land was in possession of the accused, the act of the informant by ploughing the land and his sister by spreading the seed amounted to a criminal trespass. 18. Section 97 of the IPC provides a right to private defence against a person who is guilty of committing criminal trespass or is attempting to commit a criminal trespass. It was submitted that the accused had exceeded their right of private defence, if any, because the accused had no right to cause grievous hurt to the informant. This submission will not help the prosecution. Section 104 of IPC provides that, in case of theft, mischief or criminal trespass, the right of private defence does not extend to voluntarily causing the death but extends to voluntarily causing to the wrongdoer any harm other than the death. Hence, it is not correct to say that the accused had no right 11 2026:HHC:20399 to cause grievous hurt to the informant party when they were trespassing on the land of the accused. 19. Even otherwise, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the statements of the informant and his sister were highly contradictory. The informant stated that the accused Kanshi Ram, Lucky, Happy and Hakam Singh came to the spot armed with a stick and an iron rod. He was declared hostile, and he denied the previous statement (Ext.PW-8/B) in which it was mentioned that Hakam Ram had not given the beating, and he was not present on the spot. Similarly, Sita Devi (PW-3) stated that Kanshi Ram, Lucky, Bhagat Singh and Hakam Singh came to the spot. She was also declared hostile. She denied her previous statement (Ext.PW-8/E) in which it was mentioned that Hakam Singh had not given beatings and he was not present on the spot. Therefore, the informant and his sister are shown to have falsely implicated Hakam Ram.. 20. It was specifically stated in the F.I.R. that the accused came, abused the informant and enquired as to why he was ploughing their field. Parkash Chand (PW-2) specifically stated that the accused had not said anything and suddenly started beating him. Sita Devi (PW-3) also stated that the accused had 12 2026:HHC:20399 not said anything but had given beatings. Thus, the witnesses have given a version which is contrary to the earliest version recorded in the F.I.R. 21. Parkash Chand (PW-2) stated that the accused were armed with sticks and iron rods. Sita Devi (PW-3) stated that the accused gave her and her brother a beating with sticks. Therefore, both witnesses have given different versions regarding the weapons used by the accused to cause harm to the informant and his sister. 22. Sawaru Ram (PW-4) did not support the prosecution's case. He was permitted to be cross-examined, but he denied that the accused had given beatings to the informant and his sister in his presence; therefore, there is no corroboration of the testimonies of the informant and his sister from independent sources. 23. It was submitted that the Medical Officer had noticed the injuries on the person of the informant and his sister. Normally, an injured person would not make a false statement to save the real assailant, and this aspect was ignored by the learned Trial Court. This submission will not help the prosecution. As already stated, the genesis of the incident is doubtful, and the 13 2026:HHC:20399 evidence to show that the accused were in possession is highly probable. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the informant and his sister would be in the exercise of the right to private defence, and the accused cannot be held liable simply because the informant party had sustained injuries. 24. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court even if another view is possible. 25. No other point was urged. 26. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. 27. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) 29th May, 2026. Judge (ravinder)