2026:HHC:22 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 406 of 2014 Reserved on: 11.12.2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026 State of H.P. ....Appellant Versus Veena Devi & another ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : M/s Jai Ram Sharma and Sahil Dixit, Advocates. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.06.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. II, Dehra, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 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 2026:HHC:22 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 341, 323, 504 and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that Pawna Devi was going to her filed on 03.04.2010 at about 6:00 p.m. Veena Devi (accused No. 1) stopped and told her that the field where she (the informant) was going belonged to her (accused). The accused abused and beat the informant. Satish Kumar (accused No. 2) also reached on the spot. He had an iron pipe with him. He inflicted injury on the informant with the iron pipe. The informant shouted for help. Braham Dutt (PW-3) reached the spot and rescued the informant from the accused. The matter was reported to the police, and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered. An application (Ext.PW-8/A) was filed for the informant’s medical examination. Dr Amit Verma (PW-7) examined the informant and found that she had sustained multiple injuries. He advised a CT scan and an X-ray of the head and referred the informant to Dr Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College & Hospital, Tanda, District Kangra, H.P., for further management. The nature of the injury was found to be grievous after the CT Scan. He issued MLC 3 2026:HHC:22 (Ext.PW-7/E). HC Anil Kumar (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/B). The informant produced one shirt (Ext. P-2) and one Duptta (Ext.P-3), which were put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘H’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). Pawna Devi (PW-1) produced one iron pipe (Ext.P-1), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/C). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after completion of the investigation. 3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Pawna Devi (PW-1) is the informant. Rajo Devi (PW-2), Baraham Dutt (PW-3), and Balak Ram (PW-4) are the eyewitnesses. Nirmla Devi (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. Karam Singh (PW-6) signed the F.I.R. Dr Amit Verma (PW-7) examined the injured. HC Anil Kumar (PW-8) investigated the matter. 4 2026:HHC:22 Karam Chand (PW-9) and Pawan (PW-10) did not support the prosecution’s case. 5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case it is entirety. They stated that the accused Satish Kumar was working in the Indian Navy. He returned to his village in 1998 after his retirement. He and the informant’s husband owned the property jointly, and when the accused demanded his share, it led to bitterness between the parties. The accused Satish Kumar had also lent the money to the informant’s husband. The accused was falsely implicated to avoid the payment of the amount. No defence was sought to be adduced by the accused. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the informant’s statement was contradictory. The iron pipe (Ext.P-1) could not have been used to cause injury to the informant. The prosecution’s witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects, which made the prosecution’s case highly suspect; therefore, the accused was acquitted. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the 5 2026:HHC:22 learned Trial Court failed to view the prosecution’s evidence in its proper perspective. The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses corroborated each other. Minor contradictions were blown out of proportion to discard them. The contradictions were bound to come because of the time lapse between the incident and the date of the depositions. The Investigating Officer was not asked anything about the weapon of offence, and the prosecution’s version that the pipe (Ext.P1) was used for inflicting the injury could not have been doubted. 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 Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant/State and M/s Jai Ram Sharma and Sahil Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The prosecution witnesses consistently stated that the accused had inflicted the injuries on the informant. This was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the statements of eyewitnesses. Learned Trial Court relied upon the 6 2026:HHC:22 minor contradictions to doubt the prosecution’s case, which were bound to come because of the time lapse between the date of the incident and the date of the depositions. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr Jai Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, submitted that the Medical Officer specifically stated the pipe (Ext.P1) could not be used to cause injury to the informant. The pipe was 20 feet long, and it is highly improbable that one person could have inflicted the injury with it. Learned Trial Court held that the statements of the witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects of the case. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the appeal against the acquittal. Hence, he 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 7 2026:HHC:22 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “12. 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 P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed: “ 12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by 8 2026:HHC:22 the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Pawna Devi (PW-1) stated in her examination-in-chief that the pipe (Ext.P1) was the same pipe which was used to cause injury to her. She stated in her cross-examination that the pipe (Ext.P1) shown to her in the Court was not the same pipe that was used to cause injury to her. This pipe was picked up by the police on the way. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the informant contradicted herself regarding the weapon of offence (Ext.P1). 16. Dr Amit Verma (PW-7) stated that injuries cannot be caused even if two persons hold the iron pipe and inflict the blow with it. He stated in his cross-examination that the injury can be caused by a fall on a hard surface; therefore, the Medical Officer 9 2026:HHC:22 has not supported the prosecution’s case regarding the infliction of the injuries by the pipe (Ex. P1). 17. The F.I.R. specifically mentions that the informant was going towards her field, and she was stopped on the way. Site plan (Ext.PW-8/B) shows the place of incident ‘A’ on the passage ‘XY’. The informant, Pawna Devi (PW-1), on the other hand, stated that she was working at her field when the accused Veena Devi abused her, and her husband (accused Satish Kumar) gave beatings to the informant. Thus, the informant has shifted the place of the incident to her field. 18. Rajo Devi (PW-2) stated that the accused, Veena Devi and Satish Kumar, were quarrelling with the informant in their home. Baraham Dutt (PW-3) stated that he reached the home and found that informant Pawana Devi (PW-1) and accused Veena Devi were fighting. Accused Satish also came. Accused Satish and Veena inflicted injury to the informant with a pipe (PW-1). Both these witnesses have shifted the place of the incident to the home, which would make their testimonies unreliable. 19. Balak Ram (PW-4) stated that informant Pawna Devi (PW-1) was going to her field when accused Veena Devi abused 10 2026:HHC:22 her. The accused Satish came to the spot and abused the informant. Both the accused picked up a pipe and inflicted a blow on the head of the informant. He admitted in his cross- examination that his house is located at a distance of one kilometre from the spot. Accused Satish Kumar used to abuse him and quarrel with him. 20. The cross-examination of this witness shows that he has a strained relationship with the accused Satish Kumar. His house is located 1 km away, and he had no reason to be present on the spot. He stated that he was grazing his buffalo in his field, but admitted that his field had the wheat crop, which was harvested 15 days after 13th April. The incident occurred on 03rd April, 2010, when, as per him, the wheat crop was growing in the field. His testimony that he was grazing the buffalo in his field cannot be believed because no person would take the buffalo to graze in the field where the wheat crop was standing; hence, the reason assigned by him regarding his presence on the spot is not satisfactory. 21. Nirmla Devi (PW-5) is the witness to the recovery and had not witnessed the incident. 11 2026:HHC:22 22. No other witnesses corroborated the informant’s statement. The medical evidence also did not support the informant’s version that the injury was caused by an iron pipe (Ext.P1). Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the prosecution’s case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court will not interfere with the 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. 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/accused 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 accused/respondents on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12 2026:HHC:22 25. A copy of the judgment, along with a record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) 01st January,2026. Judge (ravinder)