2026:HHC:29818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 4211 of 2013 Reserved on: 8.7.2026 Date of Decision: 21.7.2026. State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Subhash Chand ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.8.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 27.1.2007 and order of sentence dated 29.1.2007, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29818 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 Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant Huzati Ram (PW1) was going towards his home on 11.04.2003 at about 06.30 p.m. Wazir Chand (PW5) accompanied him. The accused, Subhash, met him on the way and started beating the informant with a stick. Wazir Chand rescued the informant from the accused. The informant reported the matter to the police, and the police registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A). An application (Ex.PW3/A) was filed for the medical examination of the informant. Dr Rajesh Rana (PW3) examined the informant and found that he had suffered simple and grievous injuries. He issued the MLC (Ex.PW3/A). He also advised X-ray, and the X-ray report confirmed the fracture. The injuries could have been caused by means of a stick (Ex, P1). HC Ram Chand (PW4) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW4/A). The accused produced a stick (Ex. P1), which was 3 2026:HHC:29818 seized by the police vide memo (Ex.PW2/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the chalan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with a commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. Huzati Ram (PW1) is the victim. Jonfi Ram (PW2) witnessed the recovery. Dr Rajesh Rana (PW3) medically examined the victim. HC Ram Chand (PW4) investigated the matter. Wazir Chand (PW5) is an eyewitness. 5. The accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that he was forced to produce a bamboo stick under threat. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. 4 2026:HHC:29818 6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimony of the informant/victim Huzati Ram was corroborated by the testimony of Wazir Chand (PW5) and the medical evidence. An injured witness is not likely to depose falsely against anyone to spare his real assailants. The plea taken by the accused that Huzati Ram was heavily intoxicated was not established on record. The informant has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The accused admitted that he had produced the stick, and the Medical Officer opined that the stick could have been used to cause injuries to the informant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as follows: - Sections Sentence Section 341 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three days, pay a fine of ₹500/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. Section 323 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days, pay a fine of ₹500/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. Section 325 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment 5 2026:HHC:29818 for a period of ten days, pay a fine of ₹2,000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, (Learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court held that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police, which was not properly explained. Huzati Ram was heavily intoxicated, and the possibility of his sustaining injuries from a fall could not be ruled out. The learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Hence, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court were set aside. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. There was no enmity between 6 2026:HHC:29818 the informant and the accused. The statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated each other, and there was nothing in their cross-examination to make them doubtful. Learned Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for convicting the accused, and learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well- reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside. 9. I have heard Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellant/State and Mr Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 10. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellate/State, submitted that the learned Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of learned Trial Court. The statements of witnesses corroborated each other, and these were corroborated by the medical evidence. No reason was assigned by the accused for his false implication. The learned Appellate Court erred in discarding the testimonies of the witnesses. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be 7 2026:HHC:29818 allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside. 11. Mr Rajesh Mandhothra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that Huzati Ram was heavily intoxicated. He concealed this fact during his examination before the Court, which suggests that he was not disclosing the complete truth to the Court. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police, which was not properly explained, and the learned Appellate Court was justified in doubting the prosecution's case because of the delay. The statements of the witnesses contradicted each other on material particulars. The Learned Appellate Court has taken a reasonable view, and this Court should not interfere with a reasonable view while deciding an appeal against acquittal. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 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 8 2026:HHC:29818 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, 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. 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 9 2026:HHC:29818 cases of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudarv.State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581andRajesh 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” 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 10 2026:HHC:29818 (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. As per the FIR (Ex.PW1/A), the incident happened on 11.04.2003 at about 06.30 p.m, and the matter was reported to the police on 12.04.2003 at 03.50 p.m. It was mentioned in the FIR that the informant had suffered pain in his right arm and the part of his body. Therefore, he could not report the matter to the police. The informant has not affirmed this act on oath. His statement is silent regarding the reason for the delay. Even the explanation provided by him in the FIR that he was suffering from pain and could not report the matter to the police is no explanation at all because had it been so, he would have rushed to the hospital to take the treatment and the Medical Officer on duty would have informed the police about the beatings. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court was justified in holding that there was an unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police. 11 2026:HHC:29818 18. It was laid down in Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 that the delay in lodging FIR leads to embellishments, concoction and fabrication and the court should see the prosecution case with utmost care and caution in case of delay. It was observed: "FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence to appreciate the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of the delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but danger also creeps in with the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determining whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of a copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late, it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course, the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. The prosecution has presented no evidence at all in this case. The second external check, equally important, is the sending of a copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the 12 2026:HHC:29818 prosecution's case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution's story was still in an embryonic state and had not been given any shape, and that the FIR came to be recorded later on, after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity, and it appears to us that the same has been ante-dated and had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW 8." 19. This position was reiterated in P Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu 2019 (5) SCC 40, wherein it was observed: - “12. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of a concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on the merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty-bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1].” 20. A similar view was taken in Sekaran v. State of T.N., (2024) 2 SCC 176: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 548: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1653, wherein it was observed on page 182: “14. We start with the FIR, to which exception has been taken by the appellant, urging that there has been no 13 2026:HHC:29818 satisfactory explanation for its belated registration. It is trite that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in the mind of the courts in all cases as fatal for the prosecution. A realistic and pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind the peculiarities of each particular case, to assess whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is an afterthought to give a coloured version of the incident, which is sufficient to corrode the credibility of the prosecution’s version. 15. In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending circumstances. If on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to the court that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case; however, if the delay is not satisfactorily explained and it appears to the court that cause for the delay had been necessitated to frame anyone as an accused, there is no reason as to why the delay should not be considered as fatal forming part of several factors to vitiate the conviction.” 21. Thus, the learned Appellate Court was justified in doubting the prosecution's version because of the delay. 22. Huzati Ram (PW1) denied in his cross-examination that he had consumed liquor with other persons. Wazir Chand (PW5), on the other hand, admitted that he, Huzati Ram and Tittar had consumed liquor. Wazir Chand was not re-examined by the prosecution, which means that his testimony regarding this fact was not challenged by the prosecution and is to be accepted as correct. This part of the testimony of Wazir Chand 14 2026:HHC:29818 would show that Huzati Ram was trying to conceal the truth from the Court, and his credibility is suspect. 23. Dr Rajesh Rana (PW3) noticed soft tissue swelling on the right and left forearms, swelling on the left hand, CLW left hand, abrasion on the left side of the scalp and hematoma on the right side of the scalp. The informant never stated that injuries were also inflicted on the head. Further, it is not explained how a person could suffer a fracture in both forearms by means of a stick unless the case of the prosecution is that the hands were lifted to avoid the attack, in which case the forearms would be exposed. But even then, the injuries should correspond to each other. In the present case, soft tissue swelling was present on the posterior side of his ulna of the right forearm, whereas soft tissue swelling was present on the left forearm of the middle third. No corresponding patterned wounds were visible on the forearms, which are likely to have been caused by means of a stick2. The Medical Officer admitted in this cross-examination that injuries can be caused by a fall in a state of intoxication. Thus, the Medical Officer has not ruled out the possibility of injury by way of a fall. It is an admitted version that Huzati Ram was 2 Modi A textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 24th Edition 2012 at page 521 15 2026:HHC:29818 intoxicated on the date of the incident, and the admission by the Medical Officer in the cross-examination will make the prosecution's case highly suspect. 24. The informant Huzati Ram has not given any explanation as to why the accused would pick up a quarrel with him without any reason. He has nowhere stated that he had any enmity with the accused. His version is that the accused came, picked up a stick and gave beatings without any reason. It is an admitted version that Huzati Ram, Monu, Wazir Chand and Tittar were together. Therefore, the accused had no reason to spare other persons and attack the informant if he was bent upon beating the innocent persons walking on the road. 25. Thus, the prosecution has not disclosed the complete truth to the court, and it appears that something is being withheld from the Court, which would make the prosecution's case suspect. Learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view, even if another view is possible. 26. No other point was urged. 16 2026:HHC:29818 27. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 28. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondent/accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety 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 respondent/accused on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. Records be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith, along with a copy of the judgment. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st July, 2026 (Chander)