2026:HHC:29331 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 245 of 2014 Reserved on: 10.07.2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026. Ravi Dutt ...Appellant Versus Raman Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr Jagan Nath, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 7 : Ms Sheetal Vyas, Advocate. For respondent No.8/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the offences for which they were being tried. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29331 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 Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that Ravi Dutt Sharma (PW3) was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years in Case No. 244 of 1997 titled State versus Ravi Dutt for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. He was lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan, on the night of 22/23.09.2010. The informant Ramesh Chand Sharma (PW2) went to meet Ravi Dutt on 24.09.2010, but he was not allowed to meet the victim by stating that the victim had sustained multiple injuries. The informant found after the enquiries that the victim was beaten mercilessly by the jail officials. An application (Ext.PW2/A) was filed before the Court, which was sent to the Police Station, where an FIR (Ext.PW2/A) was registered. Dr Amit Mangala (PW1) examined the victim, Ravi Dutt, and found multiple injuries on his person. He advised an X-ray. Dr D. D. Sharma (PW4) went through the X-rays and found a fracture of the distal phalanx of the right-hand ring finger and a fracture of the fourth metacarpal of the left hand. 3 2026:HHC:29331 The injury was grievous. MLC (Ext.PW1/A) was issued. Gurbaksh Singh (PW6) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/A) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. An expert opinion (Ext.PW6/B) was also obtained from Dr Piyush Kapila regarding the injuries. The police found that no offence was made out. Hence, the police filed a cancellation report. 3. The informant Ramesh Chand filed the objections to the cancellation report. Learned Trial Court found that the objections preferred by the informant were sustainable and there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Hence, the learned Trial Court ordered the issuance of the summons. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses to prove its case. Dr Amit Mangla (PW1) examined the victim. Ramesh Chand Sharma (PW2) is the informant. Ravi Dutt (PW3) is the victim. Dr. 4 2026:HHC:29331 D.D. Sharma (PW4) is the radiologist who went through the X- ray. ASI Mast Ram (PW5) signed the FIR. Gurbakash Singh (PW6) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), admitted that they were posted in Model Central Jail, Nahan. They also admitted that victim Ravi Dutt (PW3) was lodged in jail for serving the sentence for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. They denied the rest of the prosecution's case. They claimed that they were falsely implicated and that the witnesses falsely deposed against them. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the medical opinion showed that the injuries were caused one week before the incident, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution's version that the injuries were caused when the victim was lodged in jail. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the victim has filed the present appeal 5 2026:HHC:29331 asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The victim was lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan, and he had sustained injuries during the period of his imprisonment. The burden of proof was upon the accused to explain how the victim had sustained injuries. Learned Trial Court heavily relied upon the opinion given by Dr Piyush Kapila. However, Dr Piyush Kapila was not examined, and the learned Trial Court could not have relied upon the report. 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 Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the appellant/victim, Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 7/accused and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent. 8/State. 9. Mr Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the appellant/victim, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The victim’s testimony was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr Piyush Kapila was not examined before the Court, and the learned Trial Court erred in relying upon his report. The victim was lodged in jail at the time 6 2026:HHC:29331 of sustaining the injuries, and the burden is upon the accused to explain how the victim had sustained the injuries. However, the accused failed to provide any explanation, and the victim's version that the accused had caused injuries to him should have been accepted as correct. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 7/accused submitted that the medical evidence had completely ruled out the possibility of the injuries during the imprisonment of the victim. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the medical evidence would make the prosecution's case highly suspect. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court. Hence, she prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent no. 8/State submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and 7 2026:HHC:29331 the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed. 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 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. 8 2026:HHC:29331 14. 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 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; 9 2026:HHC:29331 (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 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 victim Ravi Dutt (PW3) stated that he was taken to Model Central Jail, Nahan, on 22.09.2010 at about 11.30 p.m. An entry was made by the officials posted at the gate. Enquiries were made from him on the second and third gates. He told the officials that his warrant was deposited at the entry gate. The police officials slapped him and sent him to Barrack No. 1 for 10 2026:HHC:29331 sleeping. He woke up on 23.09.2010 at 07.30 a.m. He was called by the police officials, who made enquiries from him. They gave him beatings and abused him. He went to the Superintendent of the jail and told the Superintendent of the jail that jail officials had misbehaved with him. Superintendent slapped him and told the officials to take him to gate No.1 and take proper action. He was taken to gate No.2, where he was beaten with sticks and belts. He was not permitted to talk to any person. He stated in his cross- examination that 4-5 cases were initiated against him. He admitted that the officials bear a name plate. He admitted that all the prisoners take food in a common mess. They used a common toilet and a common bathroom. He never met his brother Ramesh, the informant after his incarceration. He admitted that he was related to Dr D.D. Sharma (PW4), and clarified that he was not on visiting terms with him. He was medically examined by Dr Amit Mangala (PW1), who found multiple injuries on his person which could have been caused within one week. He denied that he did not want to spend time in Model Central Jail, Nahan and had made a false complaint to get himself shifted. 18. The prosecution also referred the matter to the expert opinion of Dr Piyush Kapila, who issued a report dated 19.07.2011, 11 2026:HHC:29331 in which it was stated that some of the injuries were caused within 24 hours, some were caused within 1 to 3 days, and some were caused beyond 2 to 3 weeks from the date of taking the X- ray because of the callus formation. Learned Trial Court relied upon the report of Dr Piyush Kapila to hold that the injuries were caused on different dates, which falsifies the prosecution's case that the injuries were caused during the same incident. Mr Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the victim, was highly critical of the fact that the learned Trial Court had relied upon a document which was not exhibited by the prosecution. However, this criticism is not justified. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 9 SCC 365, that where a document is relied upon by the prosecution, the accused is within his right to rely upon it. It was observed: “14…..Strangely, the High Court has discarded the mahazar drawn by PW 8 by giving a specious reason, viz., it was not an exhibited document before the court, little realising that this was the document produced by the prosecution itself and even without formal proof thereto by the prosecution, it was always open for the defence to seek reliance on such evidence to falsify the prosecution version….” 12 2026:HHC:29331 19. The report of Dr Piyush Kapila, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, clearly shows that the injuries were not caused in the course of the same transaction. They were caused on different dates, and the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the medical evidence made the prosecution's case highly suspect. 20. The prosecution has also not examined any inmates of the prison to corroborate the victim's version. The victim also has not stated that he had reported the matter to any fellow inmate who would have corroborated the victim's version that he was beaten inside the jail. Thus, there was no corroboration of the victim's testimony. 21. The informant was not an eyewitness, but he came to know about the beating from some other person. Therefore, his testimony is hearsay and will not assist the prosecution. 22. Learned Trial Court had refused to rely upon the sole testimony of the victim because of the inconsistency with the medical evidence. This cannot be said to be unreasonable. The victim’s testimony should have been of a sterling nature to convince the court beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident 13 2026:HHC:29331 had taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution. However, in the present case, the medical evidence made the victim’s testimony suspect. Thus, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused and no interference is required with a reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. 23. No other point was urged. 24. Consequently, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 25. 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/accused are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondents/accused on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14 2026:HHC:29331 26. Records be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith, along with a copy of the judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Nikita)