2026:HHC:35437 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 4106 of 2013 Reserved on: 14.08.2026 Date of Decision: 21.08.2026. State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Parveen Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr Tarun Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Ashok Verma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2010 and order of sentence dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35437 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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) was present in her field on 02.06.2009 at about 11 a.m. The accused came, caught hold of her breasts, and behaved indecently with her. She tried to shout, but the accused gagged her mouth. The informant tried to extricate herself, and her shirt was torn. She shouted, and Premi Devi (PW5), Babli Devi (PW3) and Smt. Kamli Devi (PW4) reached the spot. The accused ran away after seeing them. The informant's husband was not at home, and she made a complaint to the police after his arrival. The police registered the FIR (Ext.PW2/A). ASI Kuldeep (PW6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/A). The informant produced a shirt (Ext.P1) which was put in a cloth parcel (Ext.P2). The parcel was sealed with three impressions of seal “H”. Seal impression (Ext.P3) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The parcel was 3 2026:HHC:35437 seized vide memo (Ext. PW2/B). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to prove its case. Dr Rampal (PW1) examined the victim. The victim (PW2) narrated the incident. Babli Devi (PW3), Kamli Devi (PW4) and Premi Devi (PW5) are the independent witnesses, who have not supported the prosecution case. ASI Kuldeep (PW6) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), admitted that the informant's husband was working outside the home. He denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. He claimed that he was 4 2026:HHC:35437 innocent and was falsely implicated. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the victim’s statement inspired confidence. The independent witnesses stated that the victim had narrated the incident to them, which corroborated the informant's testimony in material particulars. The medical evidence also showed that the victim had sustained injuries, which corroborated her version. A woman will not put her own honour at stake by making a false allegation involving her modesty. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as under: Sections Sentence Section 354 of IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Section 323 of IPC To pay a fine of ₹1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 5 2026:HHC:35437 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, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court held that the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution version. The relationship between the informant and the accused was strained, and the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. The matter was reported to the police after a delay. The principle that a woman would not make a false allegation involving her modesty could not be applied universally. The matter was reported to the police belatedly. All these circumstances made it difficult to rely upon the prosecution version. Hence, the learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the accused. 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 erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 6 2026:HHC:35437 The victim categorically stated that the accused had outraged her modesty. Babli Devi (PW3), Kamali Devi (PW4) and Premi Devi (PW5) stated that the victim was crying and told them that the accused had outraged her modesty. The victim's torn shirt and injuries found by the medical officer corroborated her version. The learned Appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused. 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 Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 10. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the victim's testimony was found to be trustworthy by the learned Trial Court. It was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the statements of the independent witnesses who had seen her crying. The delay was properly explained and should not have been used to discard the prosecution version. The enmity is a double-edged weapon. It also furnishes a motive for the commission of the crime. 7 2026:HHC:35437 Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside. 11. Mr Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the accused and the victim had a strained relationship which motivated the victim to falsely implicate the accused. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version that they had seen the accused outraging the victim's modesty. The learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the Court acquitting the accused, even if another view is possible. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 12. I have given 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 Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1373, that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal only if it is impossible, perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal. It was observed: 8 2026:HHC:35437 Scope of interference with an acquittal: 26. At the outset, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When a court of competent jurisdiction acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is not weakened but reinforced. Where such acquittal is affirmed by the High Court, the caution to be exercised by this Court under Article 136 is even greater. 27. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048, this Court explained the golden thread running through criminal jurisprudence in the following words: “25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. A rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the Court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein 9 2026:HHC:35437 one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of the interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” 28. The decision in Kali Ram (supra) further cautions that wrongful acquittal and wrongful conviction do not stand on the same footing, for conviction of an innocent person causes grave injustice and shakes public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. The rule of benefit of doubt, therefore, is not a technical rule; it is a substantive safeguard flowing from the presumption of innocence. 29. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 60, this Court reiterated the limited scope of interference with acquittals. This Court observed: “75. The Trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence; therefore, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the Trial Court. An acquittal by the Trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.” 30. The decision in Ghurey Lal (supra) also crystallised certain propositions: first, there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of an acquitted accused; secondly, if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail; thirdly, though the appellate court has the 10 2026:HHC:35437 power to reappreciate evidence, it should interfere only when the acquittal is manifestly illegal, perverse or results in miscarriage of justice; and fourthly, due weight must be given to the Trial Court's findings, particularly because the trial judge had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses. 31. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325, this Court held that though the appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate the evidence, the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an order of acquittal. It was held that when two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal. 32. The same principle was restated in Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479, wherein this Court held that an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal. 33. Therefore, the question before us is not whether another view on the evidence is possible. The question is whether the view taken by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is impossible, perverse, wholly unsustainable, or manifestly illegal. Having examined the record, we are unable to hold so. 14. The informant stated that she was in her field on 02.06.2009. The accused came to the field, caught hold of her breasts and tried to rape her. She shouted for help, but the accused gagged her mouth with one hand and pressed her breast with the other. Her shirt was torn in the incident. She shouted for help. Premi Devi (PW5), Kamli Devi (PW4) and Babli Devi (PW3) 11 2026:HHC:35437 came to the spot, and the accused ran away from the spot after seeing them. 15. As per the informant's version, Premi Devi, Babli Devi and Kamli Devi had arrived on the spot after hearing her cries, and they had seen the accused outraging her modesty. Babli Devi (PW3) stated that she heard the noise of someone weeping. She went to the spot and saw that the victim was crying. She enquired about the reason for crying, and the victim replied that the accused had attempted to rape her. She was permitted to be cross-examined, and she denied that she saw that the accused had gagged the victim's mouth with one hand and had caught the breast of the victim with another. She denied that the accused left the victim after seeing her. Thus, it is apparent that she has not corroborated the victim's version that she had seen the accused outraging the victim's modesty. 16. Kamli Devi (PW4) stated that she heard the noise of the victim's crying. She went to the spot. She did not enquire about the reason for crying. She was permitted to be cross- examined. She denied that the accused had gagged the victim's mouth with one hand and had caught hold of the victim's breast 12 2026:HHC:35437 with another. She denied that the accused slapped the victim after seeing her. Thus, this witness has also not supported the prosecution version. 17. Premi Devi (PW5) stated that she heard the noise of the victim weeping. She went to the spot and found that the victim was crying. She enquired, and the victim revealed that the accused had acted indecently with her. However, she had not seen the accused at the place of incident. She was permitted to be cross- examined. She denied that the accused had gagged the victim’s mouth with one hand and had caught hold of the victim’s breast with another. She denied that the accused left the victim after seeing her. Thus, she has also not supported the prosecution version that she had seen the accused outraging the victim’s modesty. 18. The victim admitted in her cross-examination that the cases are pending between her and the accused before Gram Panchayat. She also admitted that she was not on talking terms with the accused. Hence, the learned Appellate Court had rightly held that the relationship between the parties was strained. 13 2026:HHC:35437 19. Dr Rampal Sharma (PW1) examined the victim. He found bilateral abrasion with contusion over the hyoid bone, which was 2x2 cm in size. The nature of the injury was simple and could have been caused by pressing the neck with both hands within 24 to 36 hours. However, the victim had nowhere stated that the accused had tried to strangle her. She only stated that the accused caught hold of her breast and attempted to rape her; when she shouted, the accused caught hold of her mouth with one hand and caught hold of her breast with the other. The medical officer had not found any injury on the face or the chest of the victim. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the victim's version; rather, it shows that the victim had sustained an injury on the neck, which is not the case of the prosecution. 20. Premi and Babli Devi stated that the victim had narrated the incident to them after their arrival. It was submitted that these statements corroborate the prosecution’s version. This submission will not help the prosecution. Premi Devi and Babli Devi were cited as the eyewitnesses, who had seen the accused outraging the victim's modesty, and once they have not supported that part of the prosecution version, the victim’s 14 2026:HHC:35437 testimony will not be corroborated by the narration of the incident to these witnesses. 21. No other point was urged. 22. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Appellate 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. 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 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. 15 2026:HHC:35437 25. A copy of the judgment, along with a record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st August, 2026 (Nikita)