2026:HHC:28269 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 362 of 2015 Reserved on: 30.06.2026 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Bodh Raj ...Appellant Versus Dina Nath & Others ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For Respondent No.5/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:28269 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act). (The parties hereinafter 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 complainant filed a complaint against the accused before the police, stating that he was going towards his home on 25.04.2010 at about 02:00 p.m. Accused Bhup Singh caught him on the way. Accused Dina Nath, Rup Lal and the father of Bhup Singh and Jagat Nath also reached the spot. All the people started beating the complainant with kicks, fist blows and stones. He was dragged towards the Government Senior Secondary School, Sarachi. They searched for a darat in the room, but could not find any. Sari Devi came to the spot and shouted for help. Maan Dassi, Atma Ram and Lot Ram (PW4) came to the spot and rescued the complainant from the accused. The accused sustained injuries in the incident. The matter was reported to the police. The police filed an application for medical examination of the informant. Dr Anamika Thakur (PW6) examined the complainant and found multiple injuries on his person. She advised a CT scan. The injuries were found to be simple after the CT scan. She also referred the complainant to a 3 2026:HHC:28269 dental surgeon. Dr Bindu Chopra (PW5) examined the complainant and found no fracture or emulsion. She stated that the injury was simple in nature. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW5/A). Dr Anamika Thakur (PW6) stated that the nature of the injury was simple. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW6/A). The police did not take any action in the matter. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court, asserting that he belonged to the scheduled caste. He was given beatings by the accused, due to which he sustained injuries. The accused also abused him in the name of the caste and threatened to kill him. The police had failed to take any action in the matter. Hence, it was prayed that an action be taken against the accused. 3. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence and found sufficient material to commit the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1) (iv) (v) and (ix) of the SC ST Act and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Special Judge, Mandi (learned Trial Court) charged the accused with the accusation of an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC and ST Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4 2026:HHC:28269 4. The complainant examined himself (PW1), Uttam Ram (PW2), Savitra Devi (PW3), Lot Ram (PW4), Dr Bindu Chopra (PW5) and Dr Anamika Thakur (PW6). 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), denied the complainant's case in its entirety. They examined Sobha Ram (DW1) in their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. The complainant failed to prove that he belonged to a scheduled caste. A notification as required under the provisions of the Constitution declaring the caste of the accused as a scheduled caste was not produced on record, which was mandatory. There were major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. There was sufficient evidence on record to show that the complainant belonged to Koli Sub-caste, which was recognised as a scheduled 5 2026:HHC:28269 caste in the Constitution and was entered at Sl. No. 35 of the schedule. The accused belonged to the Rajput family, and their caste was not included in the list of scheduled castes. The accused had abused the complainant in the name of his caste and threatened to kill him. The complainant had made a complaint to the police. But the police had failed to take any action against the accused. Hence, the complainant had to file a complaint before the Court, which led to a delay. 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 Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.5/State. 9. Mr Raju Ram Rahi, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial court erred in acquitting the accused. The statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. They specifically stated that the accused had abused the complainant in the name of his caste and threatened to kill him. 6 2026:HHC:28269 The complainant had reported the matter to the police, but no action was taken by the police, and the complainant had to file a complaint before the Court, which led to the delay. Learned Trial Court had taken a view that could not have been taken by any reasonable person. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, submitted that the testimonies of the complainant's witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects, which made the complainant's case highly doubtful. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view based on the material placed on record, and this Court should not interfere with a reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.5/State submitted that the complainant had not asserted in his complaint to the police that caste-based remarks were used by the accused. The police had 7 2026:HHC:28269 found simple injuries, and the offence was non-cognizable. Therefore, no action was taken by the police. 12. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. 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 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 at 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. 14. This position was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1743, wherein it was observed: 8 2026:HHC:28269 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 149; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471. 15. 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” 9 2026:HHC:28269 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 evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 16. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. The complainant has not placed on record his caste certificate or the caste certificate of the accused. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that in the absence of the caste certificate or the notification showing that the complainant's caste was included in the list of the scheduled caste and the caste of the accused was not included in such a schedule, no action could be taken against the accused.2 2 State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rajeev Kumar and others Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1088 10 2026:HHC:28269 18. The complainant had reported the matter to the police, and the police had submitted a report to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 202 of CrPC. The report submitted by the police does not mention that the accused had used any caste-based remarks against the complainant or had threatened to kill him because of his caste. Therefore, the complainant's version in the Court that the accused had abused him in the name of the caste and threatened to kill him because his caste was suspect, and the learned Trial Court was justified in doubting this version. 19. The complainant had mentioned in his complaint made to the police that he was rescued by Sari Devi, his aunt, who had shouted for help. Maan Dassi, Atma Ram and Lot Ram reached the spot and rescued the complainant from the accused. The complainant only examined Lot Ram (PW4), who stated in his cross-examination that he had seen the incident from a distance of half a kilometre. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the testimony of this witness could not be relied upon because he could not have witnessed the incident or heard the words uttered by the accused from half a kilometre. 11 2026:HHC:28269 20. Lot Ram (PW4) and Uttam Ram (PW2) admitted that Bhup Singh had constructed a retaining wall at the instance of HPPWD, and the complainant was dismantling the retaining wall. This testimony shows that the complainant has not disclosed the complete truth before the Court, and the incident had started over the dismantling of the retaining wall by the complainant. 21. Savitra Devi (PW3) stated that she could not recognise the persons who were fighting with each other as she was at a distance of 300 metres. Subsequently, she saw the complainant in an injured condition. Her testimony does not prove that the accused had beaten the complainant. The complainant nowhere stated that he was fighting with the accused, and the testimony of Savitra Devi (PW3) that some people were fighting with each other does not corroborate the complainant’s testimony. 22. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not interfere with a reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. 23. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 12 2026:HHC:28269 24. 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, the respondents on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 25. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 13th July, 2026 (Nikita)