2026:HHC:18431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 116 of 2014

Reserved on: 21.04.2026

Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

State of H.P. ...Appellants

Versus

Rajinder Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

No

For the Appellant : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General.

For the Respondent : Mr Shekhar Badola, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 18.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide

which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were

acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections

451, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2

2026:HHC:18431

(IPC). (The parties shall 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 451, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of

the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Madan Singh (PW4) and

the accused had gone to attend the marriage of Fuggan Singh’s son

on 28.02.2009. Accused Rajinder Singh was sitting on a seat ahead

of the informant’s seat. The accused abused the informant without

any reason. Mehar Singh was sitting with the accused. He took out

a bottle of liquor and poured it on the informant’s head. The

informant objected. Rajinder Singh told the people that he would

show a tamasha to them. The barat returned to the village, and

everybody went to their home. The informant heard a noise of the

door opening on 01.03.2009 at about 4:30 a.m. The informant woke

up. He enquired as to who had opened the door. 2-3 people came to

the informant's room and started beating the informant. The

informant identified Amrik Singh, Arun Singh and Rajinder Singh

as the assailants. Amrik Singh inflicted a fist blow on the

3

2026:HHC:18431

informant’s face, and the informant's tooth was broken. Arun

Singh, Amrik Singh and Rajinder Singh also gave beatings to Asha

Devi (PW6), the informant’s wife. The informant shouted for help.

Shakuntla Devi, Milap Singh (PW7) and Kanta Devi (PW8) reached

the spot and rescued the informant and his wife. The matter was

reported to the police. The police registered an FIR (Ext.PW4/A).

ASI Krishan Kumar (PW9) investigated the matter. He visited the

spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW9/A). He filed an

application (Ext.PW2/A) for the medical examination of the

informant Madan Singh. Dr Anuj Kumar (PW2) examined the

informant and found injuries on his person. He advised the expert

opinion from the Dental Surgeon. Dr Bharti Sood (PW1) examined

the informant and found that he had sustained grievous injuries.

She issued the MLC (Ext.PW1/B). Dr Anuj Kumar (PW2) issued a

final opinion (Ext.PW2/B) stating that the nature of the injuries

was grievous and that the injuries could have been caused within 12

hours of examination. The Medical Officer handed over the broken

pieces of the teeth (Ext.P2 and Ext.P3) to the police official

accompanying the victim. ASI Krishan Kumar (PW9) also filed an

application (Ext.PW2/H) for the medical examination of Rajinder

Singh, Amrik Singh and Arun Singh. Dr Anuj Kumar (PW2)

4

2026:HHC:18431

examined Arun Singh and found that he had sustained a simple

injury which could have been caused within 12 hours of

examination. He also examined Amrik Singh and found that he had

sustained simple injuries which could have been caused within 12

hours of the examination. ASI Krishan Kumar (PW9) recorded the

statements of the witnesses as per their version. After the

completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and

presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon

the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with

the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 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 nine witnesses to prove its

case. Dr Bharti Sood (PW1), Dental Surgeon, examined Rajinder

Singh, the informant/victim. Dr Anuj Kumar (PW2) examined the

victim and the accused. Rashpal (PW3) was posted as a

Radiographer who took the X-rays. Madan Singh (PW4) is the

informant/victim. Asha Devi (PW6) is an eyewitness/victim. Pankaj

5

2026:HHC:18431

Chambial (PW5), Milap Singh (PW7) and Kanta Devi (PW8) are the

eyewitnesses. ASI Krishan Kumar (PW9) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section

313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), denied the

prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that he was innocent,

and a false case was instituted against him due to the land dispute

with the informant. They did not produce any evidence in their

defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that Milap Singh (PW7) and

Kanta Devi (PW8) were examined as the eyewitnesses, but they did

not support the prosecution's case. It was established on record

that there was a land dispute between the accused and the

informant. The altercation in the barat could not have been a

motive for the incident. Statements of the informant and his wife

contradicted each other on material aspects, which made the

prosecution’s case doubtful. The injuries to the accused were not

explained. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

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

6

2026:HHC:18431

record. The prosecution witnesses consistently stated that the

accused had entered the informant’s house and given beatings to

him. The informant’s version was duly corroborated by Dr Anuj

Kumar (PW2) and Dr Bharti Sood (PW1), who stated that the

injuries could have been caused by the fist blows. Broken teeth

were also produced before the Court. The acquittal could not have

been recorded because the independent witnesses had not

supported the prosecution’s case. Hence, 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 Mr Shekhar Badola, learned

counsel for the respondents/accused.

9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for

the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in

acquitting the accused. Minor contradictions were blown out of

proportion to record the acquittal. The prosecution witnesses

consistently stated that the accused had entered the informant’s

house and given beatings to him and his wife. This was duly

corroborated by the statements of Dr Anuj Kumar (PW2) and Dr

7

2026:HHC:18431

Bharti Sood (PW1). Enmity is a double-edged weapon and could not

have been used to record the acquittal. Therefore, he prayed that

the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the

learned Trial Court be set aside.

10. Mr Shekhar Badola, learned counsel for the

respondents/accused, submitted that Milap Singh (PW7) and Kanta

Devi (PW8) have not supported the prosecution’s version. The

Learned Trial Court had noticed various contradictions in the

statements of the informant and his wife. The informant had

materially improved upon his version and learned Trial Court was

justified in acquitting the accused. This was a reasonable view that

could have been taken based on the evidence led before the learned

Trial Court, and should not be interfered with. Hence, he prayed

that the present appeal be dismissed.

11. I have given a 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) 5 SCC 433: 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 176 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of

8

2026:HHC:18431

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 at 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.”

13. 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.”

9

2026:HHC:18431

14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

15. The informant Madan Singh (PW4) asserted in the FIR

(Ext.PW4/A) that he had heard the noise of opening the door on

01.03.2009 at about 4:30 a.m. and he enquired who was opening the

door. 2-3 people came inside the room and started beating him. He

and his wife woke up and saw that Amrik Singh, Arun Singh and

Rajinder Singh had entered the room. They beat the informant and

Asha Devi (PW6). When the informant appeared in the Court, he

stated that the accused Rajender, Santosh Kumar, Arun and Amrik

had entered his room. They picked him up and threw him on the

floor. They gave him beatings with kicks and fist blows. His son

also reached the spot. Amrik Singh tried to strangulate him. The

accused also gave beatings to his wife, his daughter and his

mother. No person came to the room because the accused had

locked the door. When he was going to the police station, he was

pushed into the verandah, and he was beaten. Shakuntla Devi,

Bhuri Singh and Milap Singh had rescued him.

16. Learned Trial Court had rightly pointed out that the

informant had materially improved upon his version. He had not

10

2026:HHC:18431

named Santosh Kumar as the assailant in the FIR, but he

mentioned Santosh Kumar as one of the assailants in his statement

on oath. He claimed on oath that he was thrown off the bed onto

the floor and that the accused had given beatings to his son,

daughter and mother, which facts were not mentioned in the FIR.

He stated that no person entered the room because the accused had

bolted the door, which means that the door could be bolted. It is

highly unlikely that the informant would have slept after keeping

the door open, enabling the accused to walk into the room and give

him beatings. He claimed in the Court that he was pushed in the

Verandah and beaten when he was going to Haripur, a fact which

was omitted from the FIR. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was

justified in doubting the informant’s statement because of the

improvements made by him.

17. Pankaj Chambial (PW5) stated that he was sleeping in

the room when the accused entered his parents’ room and gave

them beatings. He came out of the room and tried to rescue his

father. The accused tried to strangulate him. His sister came to the

spot, and she was also beaten. The accused sat on the informant’s

11

2026:HHC:18431

chest and gave him beatings. His grandmother came to the spot,

and she was also beaten.

18. The testimony of this witness is also not as per the

initial version recorded in the FIR. The FIR never mentioned that

he, his sister and his grandmother were beaten. Thus, this witness

has exaggerated the initial version in the Court.

19. Even Smt. Asha Devi (PW6) has not supported the

exaggerations made by the informant and his son. She only stated

that she was sleeping. The accused knocked at the door and gave

beatings to her husband. She had rescued her husband. Her

daughter and son, Shakuntla Devi, Milap Singh (PW7) and Kanta

Devi (PW8) came to the spot.

20. Asha Devi (PW6) did not state that the accused had

given beatings to her, her son, daughter and mother-in-law. She

stated that the accused had knocked at the door, which means that

the door was not open, which is contrary to the prosecution's case

that the door was opened by the accused, and the informant woke

up after hearing the noise.

21. Milap Singh (PW7) did not support the prosecution's

case. He stated that Madan Singh (PW4) and Rajender were arguing

12

2026:HHC:18431

with each other. Nothing else had happened in his presence. He

was permitted to be cross-examined, but he denied that the

accused had given beatings to the informant by entering his room.

Similarly, Kanta Devi (PW8) stated that she heard the noise, but

she had not gone to the spot. She was permitted to be cross-

examined, but she did not support the prosecution's case that the

accused had entered the informant’s room and given him beatings.

22. Therefore, the independent witnesses have not

supported the prosecution's case, and there was no corroboration

of the informant’s testimony, which was required because the

informant had materially improved upon his initial version and

had projected a case which was never projected by him in the FIR

and which was not even supported by his wife, Asha Devi (PW6).

23. Dr Anuj Kumar (PW2) examined Arun Singh and Amrik

Singh and found that they had sustained injuries. Learned Trial

Court had rightly held that no explanation for the injuries was

provided by the prosecution. No person deposed that the accused

was beaten. 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

13

2026:HHC:18431

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 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

14

2026:HHC:18431

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 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 probable, 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. 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.”

15

2026:HHC:18431

24. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly doubted

the prosecution's version because of the non-explanation of the

injuries of the accused.

25. Thus, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable

view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not interfere

with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another

view is possible while deciding an appeal against the acquittal.

26. No other point was urged.

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

dismissed, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, 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 respondents/accused are directed to furnish bail

bond 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

16

2026:HHC:18431

receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

29. A copy of the judgment, along with records of the

learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge

20

th

May, 2026

(Nikita)