2026:HHC:24381 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 4188 of 2013 Reserved on: 18.05.2026 Date of Decision: 23.06.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Nazira Bibi & others. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Ms Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate, for respondents Nos 2 and 4. Proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have abated vide order dated 12.11.2025 Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The State has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 25.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.1, Hamirpur (HP) (learned Trial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:24381 Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under section 341, 323, 325 and 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The 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, 341, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Gatta Ram (PW1), had a dispute over the land with Rulia Ram and Fatehdeen. The informant was present in his courtyard on 23.09.2007 at about 12:00-12:30 p.m. Rulia Ram was collecting Walnuts by going to the informant’s field, where he had planted French beans. The informant objected, and Rulia Ram got infuriated. He started abusing the informant. The informant proceeded towards his home, but Rulia Ram, Kishori Lal and Giano Devi stopped him. They gave him beatings. The informant shouted for help. Vidya Devi (PW-3) and Pinki Devi (PW-2) reached the spot. Niyaz Deen and Zamira Begum also reached the spot and gave beatings to the 3 2026:HHC:24381 informant, Vidya Devi (PW-3) and Pinki Devi (PW-2), who sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the police, and FIR (Ex. PW- 7/A) was registered in the Police station. An application (Ex. PW-7/B) was filed for the medical examination of the injured. Doctor Gopal Beri (PW-6) examined Gatta Ram and Pinki Devi and found that they had sustained simple injuries that could have been caused by a blunt weapon like a stick (Ex. P1). He issued MLCs (Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/C). He also examined Vidya Devi and found that she had sustained simple and grievous injuries, which could have been caused by means of a blunt weapon like a stick (Ex. P1). He issued the MLC (Ex. PW-6/B). Head Constable Brahm Dass (PW8) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW8/A). Niyaz Deen produced the stick (Ex. P1), which was seized vide memo (Ex. PW 2/A). HC Brahm Dass (PW8) recorded the statements of witnesses as per the version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. The 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:24381 Section 341, 323, 325, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Gatta Ram (PW-1) is the informant. Pinki Devi (PW-2) and Vidya Devi (PW-3) are the eyewitnesses. Sanjeev Kumar (PW-4) took the X-rays. Randhir Singh (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. Dr Gopal Beri (PW-6) medically examined the injured. HC Ranjit Singh (PW-7) signed the F.I.R. Braham Dass (PW-8) investigated the matter. 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 they were falsely implicated, and the witnesses deposed falsely against them. They did not produce any evidence despite repeated opportunities. Hence, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence vide order dated 5th December, 2012. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution's witnesses improved upon their version, which made their testimonies doubtful. The medical officer admitted that injuries could have been caused by a fall. The relationship between the 5 2026:HHC:24381 parties was strained, and the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Hence, 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 failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The statements of prosecution witnesses were rejected without any cogent reasons. The statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on material aspects. Their testimonies were corroborated by the recovery of the stick, the weapon of offence and the medical evidence. The prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused; hence, 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 Ms Sangeeta Vasudeva, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4. Respondents No. 1 and 3 died during the pendency of the proceedings, and the proceedings abated qua them. 6 2026:HHC:24381 9. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant/State, submitted that the Learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. Minor contradictions were highlighted as major contradictions. The minor contradictions were bound to come with the passage of time due to failure of memory and should not have been blown out of proportion. The statements of the injured were corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. 10. Ms Sangeeta Vasudeva, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 4, submitted that the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, she 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) 5 SCC 433: 2025 SCC 7 2026:HHC:24381 OnLine SC 176 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading of evidence, omission to consider the material evidence and no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It was observed on page 438: “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. This position was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1743, wherein it was observed: 21. We may note that the present appeal is one against acquittal. Law is well-settled by a plethora of judgments of this Court that, in an appeal against acquittal, unless the finding of acquittal is perverse on the face of the record and the only possible view based on the evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused, only in such an event, should the appellate Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal. Where two views are possible, i.e., one consistent with the acquittal and the other holding the accused guilty, the appellate Court should refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudarv. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 8 2026:HHC:24381 149; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471. 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 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 9 2026:HHC:24381 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. Gatta Ram (PW-1) stated that his wife and daughter had gone to collect the grass, and he was alone in his house. Niazudeen and his family members came to his house and started beating him. First, Niazudeen beat the informant, and thereafter, the other family members gave him beatings. He shouted for help. His wife and daughter-in-law came to the house, and they were beaten when they were coming towards the house on the way. Niazudeen was armed with a stick and entered, and the injuries were caused by the stick and the iron rod. 17. The statement on oath is contrary to the initial version projected in the F.I.R. It was asserted in the F.I.R. that Rulia Ram was damaging the French beans; the informant objected, and Rulia Ram gave beatings to the informant. The informant tried to go inside the house, but he was stopped by Kishori Lal and Giano Devi. He shouted for help. Vidya Devi and Pinki Devi came to rescue him. Niazudeen and Nazira also came to the spot. Therefore, as per the earliest version, the incident had started 10 2026:HHC:24381 when Rulia Ram had caused damage to the French beans grown by the informant. The informant, on the other hand, stated in the Court that Niazudeen and his family members came to his house and started beating him without any reason. 18. The informant stated in the Court that the accused had given beatings to him with a stick and an iron rod. The weapons of offence were not mentioned in the F.I.R., and it was stated that the accused had given beatings with kicks and fist blows. Therefore, the informant has also changed the weapon of offence in the Court. 19. Pinki Devi (PW-2) stated that she heard the cries and went to her home along with her mother-in-law. She saw that the accused were beating Gatta Ram with a stick, kicks and fist blows. She and her mother-in-law were beaten by Niazudeen, Nazira Bagum and Giano Devi. She identified the stick as the weapon of offence carried by the accused. 20. Vidya Devi (PW-3) stated that she had gone to rescue her husband and was beaten by sticks on the arm and the shoulder. The accused had also given beatings to her daughter-in- law. 11 2026:HHC:24381 21. The statements of these witnesses are not in accordance with the statement of the informant. The informant stated that the accused had given beatings to his wife and daughter-in-law on the way when they were coming to their home. These witnesses, on the other hand, stated that the accused had given beatings to them in their home when they were trying to rescue the informant from the accused. Both the witnesses have not mentioned that the accused carried any iron rod with them, and their testimonies contradict the informant’s statement that the accused had an iron rod with them, which was used by them to inflict injuries upon the informant. 22. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness to the incident, even though Vidya Devi (PW-3) stated that the villagers were watching the incident from a distance. It is an admitted version of the prosecution that the relationship between the informant and the accused was strained, and they had a land dispute. Therefore, it was essential in these circumstances that independent witnesses should have been examined to corroborate the informant’s testimony. 12 2026:HHC:24381 23. It was submitted that the medical evidence corroborated the statements of the witnesses. This submission will not help the prosecution because the statements of the prosecution have not been found to be unsatisfactory, and the medical evidence will not make them satisfactory. 24. There is no other evidence to corroborate the prosecution’s version, and the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused. This Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned trial Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal. 25. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 26. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, which shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, 13 2026:HHC:24381 the respondents on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 27. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23rd June, 2026 (ravinder)