2026:HHC:13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No.4103 of 2013

Reserved on: 02.12.2025

Decided on: 01.01.2026

State of H.P.

...…. Appellant

Versus

Manohar Singh & others …. Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

No.

For the Appellant

: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional

Advocate General.

For the Respondents : M/s Parav Sharma and Shekhar

Badola, Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 20.03.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Court No. II, Palampur, District Kangra, 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 147, 323, and 325, read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The parties shall

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes.

2

2026:HHC:13

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 for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and

325 read with Section 149 of the IPC. It was asserted that the

informant, Balwant Singh (PW-1), owned the land adjacent to

the house of Manohar Singh (accused No. 1). A Seesham tree

existed on his land, which fell on 08.07.2009 due to heavy rain.

Balibhadar Singh (PW-2) and Krishan Singh (PW-4) went to cut

it. Manohar Singh, his two sons, his wife and daughter came

out of the house and got into a quarrel with Balwant Singh and

other persons at about 4:45 a.m. They also gave beatings to

Balibhadar Singh (PW-2). Accused Manohar Singh picked up a

stick and inflicted a blow on the head of Balibhadar Singh

(PW-2), who suffered a bleeding injury. The informant and

Balibhadar Singh (PW-2) sustained injury in the incident.

Krishan Chand (PW-4) rescued the informant from the accused.

The matter was reported to the police, and the police registered

the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A). SI Baldev Singh (PW-12) investigated

the matter. He filed an application (Ext.PW -12/A) for the

medical examination of the injured. Dr Arun Gupta (PW-9)

3

2026:HHC:13

medically examined Balibhadar(PW-2) and found he had

sustained multiple injuries. He advised an X -ray and the

opinion of the dental surgeon. No fracture was detected in the

part x-rayed. Dr Arun Gupta advised C.T. Scan. Dr P.K. Soni

(PW-11) conducted the CT scan of the injured. Dr Ankit Shukla

(PW-10) went through C.T. scan of Balibhadar and issued a

report (Ext.PW-10/A) describing a fracture of the right nasal

bone. Dental Surgeon, Dr K.K. Bansal (PW-7), examined

Balibhadar (PW-2) and found that he had not sustained any

fracture or dislocation of the tooth. He issued his opinion

(Ext.PW-7/B). Dr Arun issued his final opinion that the nature

of the injury was grievous. He issued MLC (Ext.PW -9/C).

Dr Arun Gupta (PW-9) also examined the informant Balwant

Singh (PW-1) and found that he had sustained simple injuries.

He issued MLC (Ext.PW -9/D). ASI Madan Mohan (PW -8)

investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the

site plan (Ext.PW-8/A). Balwant Singh (PW-1) produced one

Kurta (Ext.P1) and Pyjama (Ext.P2), which were torn during the

incident. These were put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was

sealed with five seal impressions of seal ‘A’. Balibhadar

produced under vest (Ext.P4), and T-shirt (Ext.P5), which were

put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with five seal

4

2026:HHC:13

impressions of seal ‘A’. The seal impression (Ext.PW-8/B was

taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over

to Hoshiar Singh after its use. Cloth parcels were seized vide

memos (Ext.PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B). Manohar Singh produced

the stick (Ext.P3), which was used for inflicting injury on the

head of Balibhadar Singh (PW-2). The stick was seized vide

memo (Ext.PW-1/C) The statements of prosecution witnesses

were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the

investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before

the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, and

325, read with Section 149 of IPC, to which they pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove

its case. Balwant Singh (PW -1) is the informant/victim.

Balibhadar (PW-2) sustained injuries in the incident. Hosihar

Singh (PW-3), Krishan Singh (PW-4) and Savitri Devi (PW-5)

are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Subhash Chand (PW -6)

witnessed the recovery of the stick. Dr K.K. Bansal (PW-7), the

dental surgeon, examined the victim, Balibhadar. ASI Madan

5

2026:HHC:13

Mohan (PW8) and SI Baldev Singh (PW -12) investigated the

matter. Dr Arun Gupta (PW-9) examined the victims. Dr Ankit

Shukla (PW-10) went through the CT scan . Dr P.K. Soni

conducted the CT scan of the injured.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under

Section 313 of Cr. P.C. admitted that a tree had fallen outside

their home on the way to their house. They admitted that

Balibhadar and Krishan Chand went to cut the tree. Accused

Manohar Singh came to the spot and asked them not to cut the

tree as it would cause damage to their path. They claimed that

Balibhadar had slipped and his head hit the branch of the tree.

He tried to get up but again fell, causing injuries to himself.

Savitri Devi (PW-5), Hoshiar Singh (PW-3), Onkar and about

fifty persons had attacked them. The relationship between the

complainant and the accused w as strained. Informant and

Balibhadar had sustained injuries by way of a fall. They had

beaten accused Manohar Singh, who was rescued by other

persons. They examined HHC Vinod Kumar (DW-1) and Dr Arun

Gupta (DW-2) to prove their defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had

suppressed the genesis of the incident. Accused Manohar Singh

6

2026:HHC:13

had sustained injuries that were not explained by the

prosecution’s witnesses. The witnesses to the recovery made

contradictory statements, which made their testimonies highly

suspect. The relationship between the parties was strained, and

the prosecution’s case was required to be seen with due care and

caution. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a

reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the

accused of the charged offences.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the

learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal

asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly

appreciate the material on record. Balwant Singh (PW-1) and

Balibhadar (PW-2) supported the prosecution case ; their

testimonies were corroborated by Dr Arun Gupta (PW-9), Dr

Ankit Shukla (PW-10) and Dr P.K. Soni (PW-11). There was

nothing to doubt their testimonies. The enmity was wrongly

used to discard the prosecution’s case. The enmity was the

cause of the incident. Subhash Chand (PW -6) proved the

recovery of the stick. The defence version that the complainant

party has sustained injuries by a fall was not supported by Dr

Arun Gupta (PW-9). Therefore, it was prayed that the present

7

2026:HHC:13

appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial

Court be set aside.

8. I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned

Additional Advocate General, for the appellant/State and M/s

Parav Sharma and Shekhar Badola, learned counsel for the

respondents/accused.

9. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate

General, for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned

Trial Court erred in discarding the testimonies of the informant

and Balibhadar (PW-2). These testimonies were corroborated

by the medical evidence. The relationship between the parties

was strained, and the enmity was the cause of the incident. The

defence version that the informant party had slipped and

sustained injuries was falsified by Dr Arun Gupta (PW-9), who

had categorically stated that the injuries noticed by him could

not have been caused by a fall. Learned Trial Court erred in

discarding the statements of the witnesses. Therefore, he

prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment

passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

10. Mr Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court

8

2026:HHC:13

had rightly discarded the testimonies of eyewitnesses. The

statements were full of contradictions on the material aspect.

The prosecution had failed to explain the injuries sustained by

the accused, and the learned Trial Court was justified in holding

that the prosecution’s version was not believable. Therefore, 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 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

9

2026:HHC:13

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

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. Dr Arun Gupta (DW-2) examined accused Manohar

Singh, and found that he (Manohar Singh) had sustained

multiple injuries, which could have been caused by a blunt

weapon within six hours of the examination. He admitted in the

cross-examination that injuries were possible in a scuffle.

10

2026:HHC:13

16. The prosecution’s witnesses did not explain the

injuries sustained by accused Manohor Singh. Balwant Singh

(PW-1) denied in his cross-examination that the informant

party had given beatings to Manohar Singh and his family

members. He also denied that accused Manohar Singh had

sustained injuries, and he was medically examined at Bhawarna

Hospital. Balibhadar (PW-2) also denied in his cross -

examination that the informant party had given beatings to the

accused. He was not aware that the accused Manohar Singh was

examined at Bhawarna hospital. Krishan Singh (PW -4) denied

in his cross-examination that Balwant Singh (PW -1) and

Balibhadar (PW-2) had beaten accused Manohar Singh (PW-1).

Therefore, all the witnesses failed to explain the injuries to

accused Manohar Singh. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Parshuram v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1416, that the non-explanation of the injuries to the accused

assumes significance when the evidence consists of interested

or inimical witnesses and the defence version competes in

probability with the prosecution case. It was observed:-

“31. We do not find the said observation of the trial court

correct. The injuries sustained by Ramrup @ Roopa are

from a sharp weapon. It will be trite to refer to the

11

2026:HHC:13

following observations of this Court in the case of

Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394:

12. ……. It seems to us that in a murder case, the

non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the

accused at about the time of the occurrence or in

the course of the altercation is a very important

circumstance from which the court can draw the

following inferences:

“(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the

genesis and the origin of the occurrence and

has thus not presented the true version;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the

presence of the injuries on the person of the

accused are lying on the most material point,

and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence version

which explains the injuries on the person of

the accused, it is rendered probable so as to

throw doubt on the prosecution’s case.”

The omission on the part of the prosecution to

explain the injuries to the person of the accused

assumes much greater importance where the

evidence consists of interested or inimical

witnesses or where the defence gives a version

which competes in probability with that of the

prosecution. In the instant case, when it is held, as

it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh

received serious injuries which have not been

explained by the prosecution, then it will be

difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of

these witnesses have lied by stating that they did

not see any injuries on the person of the accused.

Thus, neither the Sessions Judge nor the High

Court appears to have given due consideration to

this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the

prosecution's case. We must hasten to add that, as

held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima

(1975) 2 SCC 7: 1975 SCC (Cri) 384, there may be

12

2026:HHC:13

cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by

the prosecution may not affect the prosecution's

case. This principle would obviously apply to cases

where the injuries sustained by the accused are

minor and superficial or where the evidence is so

clear and cogent, so independent and

disinterested, so prob able, consistent and

creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the

omission on the part of the prosecution to explain

the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not

such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in

error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the

prosecution case on unconvincing premises.”

32. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of

injuries has been taken by this Court in the cases of State

of Rajasthan v. Madho 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396, State of M.P.

v. Mishrilal (Dead) (2003) 9 SCC 426, Nagarathinam v.

State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 9 SCC 57

and recently in the case of Nand Lal v. State of

Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 262

33. Undisputedly, in the present case also, the witnesses

are interested witnesses. The injuries sustained by the

three accused persons are not at all explained. The trial

court and the High Court have not considered this aspect

of the matter.

34. Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the

accused would create doubt as to whether the

prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the

incident or not. Undisputedly, as observed hereinabove, a

cross-case was also registered against the complainant

party for the injuries sustained by the accused persons.”

17. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held

that failure to explain the injuries to the person accused

Manohar Singh would be an important circumstance in the

present case.

13

2026:HHC:13

18. The accused have not disputed in their statements

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that a tree had fallen on the

way to their house. They have not disputed that Manohar Singh

had objected to the cutting of the trees; therefore, a major part

of the prosecution’s case was admitted by the accused.

19. Balwant Singh (PW-1) stated that accused Manohar

Singh came to the spot and asked them not to cut the tree on

the spot, as it would damage the path. He replied that the tree

would be cut into small pieces and removed from the spot.

Manohar Singh abused him (Balwant Singh ) and left the spot.

He, his wife, his son, and his daughter returned at 4:45 p.m. and

gave beatings to Balibhadar. Manohar Singh inflicted an injury

by means of a stick on the head of Balibhadar.

20. The statement of this witness is contradictory to the

initial version recorded in the F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A), wherein it

was mentioned that the informant party had gone to cut the

tree at 4:45 p.m. when the incident had occurred. The

informant, Balwant Singh (PW-1), stated in the Court that

earlier an objection was raised by the accused, and thereafter all

the accused came to the spot, which version was never projected

in the F.I.R.

14

2026:HHC:13

21. Balibhadar (PW-2) stated that he and his brother,

Balwant Singh (PW-1), started cutting the trees. Accused

Manohar Lal came to the spot and requested them not to cut the

tree as it would damage the path. Balwant Singh (PW-1) replied

that the tree would be cut only into small pieces and would be

removed thereafter. Manohar Singh started abusing the

informant party and went to his house. All the accused came

after some time. Accused Manohar Singh inflicted a blow by

means of a stick lying on the spot on the head of Balibhadar

(PW-2).

22. The statement of this witness is also contrary to the

initial version projected in the F.I.R. He stated that he and his

brother had gone to cut the tree at 4:45 p.m. ; whereas,

informant stated that accused Manohar Singh had requested

them not to cut the tree earlier and all the accused came at 4:45

p.m. therefore, the statements of these two witnesses

contradicted each other regarding the time of the incident.

23. Krishan Singh (PW-4) stated that the tree was being

cut into small pieces. Accused Manohar Singh came to the spot

and asked them to remove the tree from the spot and not to cut

it down. Balwant Singh (PW-1) replied that the tree was huge

15

2026:HHC:13

and could not be removed. This led to the argument. Accused

Manohar Singh went inside the gate and thereafter came with

his family members. They gave beatings to Balwant Singh

(PW-1) and Balibhadar (PW-2). Accused Manohar Singh

inflicted the blow by means of a stick.

24. Hoshiar Singh (PW -3) admitted in his cross -

examination that the incident had not taken place in his

presence and he had only taken the injured to the hospital;

therefore, he is not an eyewitness and his testimony does not

corroborate the testimonies of the informant and Balibhadar

(PW-2).

25. Savitri Devi (PW-5) stated that she arrived on the

spot at 4:45 p.m. and found that both parties were abusing each

other. Balibhadar (PW-2) had sustained an injury to the head,

which was bleeding. Balwant Singh (PW-1) had also sustained

injuries, and the clothes were torn. She inquired into the matter

and found that the accused had beaten Balwant Singh (PW -1)

and Balibhadar (PW-2). She stated in her cross-examination

that many people had gathered at the time of her arrival at the

spot.

16

2026:HHC:13

26. The testimony of this witness does not prove as to

which party was the aggressor. Her statement shows that the

accused and the informant party were abusing each other. Since

in the present case, the genesis of the incident is suspect, hence

her testimony will not help the prosecution.

27. All the witnesses admitted that the accused

Manohar Singh had objected to the cutting of trees by saying

that it would cause damage to the road. This versions was

suppressed in F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) This admission makes the

defence version probable that the accused Manohar Singh had

objected to the cutting of trees. The prosecution’s witnesses

failed to explain the injuries sustained by accused Manohar

Singh, which can lead to an inference that the informant party

was the aggressor, who had beaten accused Manohar Singh.

28. Hoshiar Singh (PW-3) and Savitri Devi (PW-5)

admitted in their cross-examination that 50-70 people had

gathered on the spot. However, no independent witness was

examined, and the learned Trial Court was justified in doubting

the prosecution’s case because of the non-examination of the

independent persons.

17

2026:HHC:13

29. Dr Arun Gupta (PW -9) admitted in his cross-

examination that injuries No. 2 to 5 caused to Balibhadar

(PW-2) and all the injuries caused to complainant Balwant

Singh (PW-1) could be caused by slipping while pulling the

branches of the tree; therefore, the testimony of this witness

corroborates the defence version that the informant and

Balibhadar (PW-2) had fallen on the slippery surface while

cutting the tree.

30. There is no other evidence corroborating the

prosecution’s version, and the learned Trial Court had taken a

reasonable view that the genesis of the incident was not

established. This Court will not interfere with the reasonable

view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the appeal against

the acquittal, even if another view is possible.

31. No other point was urged.

32. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and it is

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

33. 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

18

2026:HHC:13

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.

34. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the

learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

01

st

January, 2026 Judge

(ravinder)