STATE OF HP vs RAJ KUMAR

2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2014
Reserved on: 07.07.2026
Date of Decision: 20.07.2026.
State of H.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
For the respondents : Mr Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court), vide which the
judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2008 and order of sentence
dated 22.10.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were
set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred in the same
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
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 323, 325 and 504, read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the
informant, Veena Devi (PW1), had gone to her fields to graze her
cattle. Accused Raj Kumar was also grazing his cattle in the
vicinity. Cattle of Raj Kumar went to the wheat fields of the
informant. The informant objected and enquired as to why the
accused had left his cattle in her field. Accused Raj Kumar became
infuriated and started abusing the informant. He caught hold of
the informant by her neck and started beating her with kicks and
fist blows. The informant's husband, Parkash Chand (PW2),
came to the spot after hearing the noise. He tried to rescue the
informant from the accused, but the accused inflicted a blow by
means of a darat to Parkash Chand, who sustained an injury on
his left arm. Bishan Singh and his wife also quarrelled with the
informant. Lucky and Deepu rescued the informant from the
accused. The matter was reported to the police. An entry in the
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
Daily Diary (Ext.PW7/A) was recorded in the Police Station. An
application (Ext.PW8/B) was filed for conducting the medical
examination of the injured. Dr Sunita (PW5) examined the
informant and found that she had sustained simple injuries that
could have been caused within 6 hours of examination. She
issued MLC (Ext.PW5/A). Dr Sunita (PW5) also examined Prakash
Chand and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. She
advised X-Ray. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW4) went through the X-
Ray and found that there was a fracture of the lateral epicondyle
of the left humerus bone. The nature of the injury was stated to
be grievous. An MLC (Ext.PW5/B) was issued. FIR (Ext.PW9/A)
was registered, and the investigation was handed over to Partap
Singh (PW8), who visited the spot and prepared the spot map
(Ext.PW8/A). Raj Kumar produced darat , which was seized vide
memo (Ext.PW1/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded
as per their version, and 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
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
Sections 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its
case. Informant Veena Devi (PW1) and her husband Parkash
Chand (PW2) are the eyewitnesses/victims. Lokesh Kumar (PW3)
and Sandeep Kumar (PW6) did not support the prosecution's
case. Dr Kalpana Mahajan (PW4) is the radiologist who went
through the X-ray and found a fracture. Dr Sunita (PW5)
medically examined the victims. HHC Gulzar Chand (PW7)
proved the entry in the diary. Partap Singh (PW8) investigated
the matter. Smt. Sureshta Thakur (PW9) signed the FIR and
prepared the challan.
5. The accused, in their statements recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), denied the
prosecution's case in its entirety. They claimed that Raj Kumar
was grazing the cattle in his field. Prakash Chand came to the
field and inflicted a blow to Raj Kumar with a darat. He also
inflicted injury to Bishan Dass, whose two teeth were damaged.
Prakash Chand ran with darat and fell on it. He sustained injury
by way of a fall. They produced the documents in their defence.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the
informant and her husband corroborated each other. Medical
evidence also proved that Prakash Chand had sustained an injury
that could have been caused by means of a darat . The
independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case,
but admitted that Raj Kumar was armed with a darat, which
corroborated the prosecution's version that Raj Kumar had
inflicted injury to Prakash Chand with a darat. Hence, the learned
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as under: -
Sections Sentence
Section 325 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment
for one year each, pay a fine of
₹1000/- each, and, in default of
payment of the fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for three
months each.
Section 323 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment
for three months each, pay a fine
of ₹500/- each, and, in default of
payment of the fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one
month each.
Section 504 of IPC To undergo simple imprisonment
for one month each, pay a fine of
₹200/- each, and, in default of
payment of the fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for seven
days each.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to 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-I, Kangra, at
Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court
held that civil litigation was pending between the parties, and the
possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Two FIRs
were registered regarding the same incident, which should have
been investigated by the same Investigating Officer. However,
the same Investigating Officer had not investigated the matter.
The statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other
on material aspects, and independent witnesses also did not
support the prosecution's case. All these aspects made the
prosecution's case highly doubtful. Learned Trial Court erred in
relying upon the prosecution's version. Hence, the learned
Appellate Court accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment
and order passed by the learned Trial Court.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by
the learned Appellate Court, the State has filed the present appeal
asserting that the learned Appellate Court erred in acquitting the
accused. The testimonies of the informant and her husband were
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
consistent, and these were corroborated by the medical evidence.
The police had also seized darat which was identified by Prakash
Chand. Learned Appellate Court relied upon minor contradictions
to record the acquittal, which is impermissible. Therefore, it was
prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment
passed by the Appellate Court be set aside.
9. I have heard Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned
Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr
Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the respondents/accused.
10. Mr Jitender Kumar Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the
learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned
judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The testimonies of
prosecution witnesses were duly corroborated by the medical
evidence, and this aspect was ignored by the Learned Appellate
Court. The accused could not have been acquitted because two
FIRs were not investigated by the same Investigating Officer.
Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
11. Mr Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel for the
respondents/accused, submitted that the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material
aspects. The independent witnesses did not support the
prosecution's case, and this made the prosecution's case highly
suspect. The prosecution witnesses did not provide any
explanation for the injuries sustained by Prakash Chand, which
made the prosecution's case highly suspect. The learned
Appellate Court has taken a reasonable view, and this Court
should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned
Appellate Court. Therefore, 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
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, is based on misreading of
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
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
cases of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. 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 .
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
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
(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
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
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. Prakash Chand (PW2) stated that Raj Kumar inflicted
a blow by the sharp side of a darat on his left arm. Dr Sunita
(PW5) examined Prakash Chand and issued the MLC (Ext.PW5/B)
in which CLW just above the left elbow joint was detected. She
mentioned the kind of weapon used as a blunt object. She stated
on oath that she could not say whether the injury on the person
of Prakash Chand was possible with the sharp side of the darat,
and she had given her opinion that the nature of the weapon was
blunt because the darat was not shown to her. It was laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. State of Punjab ,
(1987) 1 SCC 679, that when the accused had used sharp-edged
weapons, but not a single incised wound was found, the
prosecution's case that sharp-edged weapons were used would
be doubtful, and this would introduce a serious defect in the
prosecution's case sufficient to discredit the entire case. It was
observed:
10… .It has already been noticed that all the accused
persons were armed with sharp weapons. It is the evidence
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
of PW 5 that Amar Singh, son of Bachan Singh, and Rattan
Singh were each armed with a sua , Lakha Singh was armed
with a barchi , Harbhajan Singh was armed with a kulhari,
and Amar Singh, son of Isher Das, was armed with a
kirpan . She said: “Then all the accused except Bachan
Singh accused surrounded my son Piara Singh (deceased).
Then Lakha Singh gave a barchi -blow on the left knee of
my son. Then Piara Singh (deceased) fell down, and all the
accused then gave injuries to him with their respective
weapons.” In her cross-examination, she said that the
accused persons gave quite a number of blows with their
respective weapons after they had overpowered him, and
that many of the blows fell on the ribs and abdomen of
deceased Piara Singh. But, not a single incised wound was
found on the body of the deceased by PW 2, Dr Verma.
Moreover, the medical report shows that there was no
injury to the ribs and abdomen of the deceased. We are
unable to accept the evidence of PW 5 that although a
number of blows were given by the accused with their
weapons on the ribs and abdomen of the deceased, yet
such blows did not produce any mark of injury. The
medical report submitted by PW 2 shows that there were
only contusions, abrasions and fractures, but there was no
incised wound on the left knee of the deceased as alleged
by PW 5. If her evidence that all the accused inflicted
injuries on the deceased with their respective weapons has
to be accepted, then there would be incised wounds all
over the body of the deceased, but the medical report
shows that not a single incised wound was found on the
body of the deceased. Thus, the evidence of PW 5 is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence. This Court in Ram
Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 497: 1975 SCC
(Cri) 571: AIR 1975 SC 1727] has laid down that if the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most
fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless
reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire
case. There is no explanation for the apparent total
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

13
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
inconsistency between the evidence of PW 5 and the
medical evidence.
18. A similar view was taken in Raj Pal v. State of Haryana,
(2007) 13 SCC 554: 2007 SCC OnLine SC 600, wherein it was
observed at page 557:
12.  In this connection, it may be mentioned that in the FIR
dated 5-8-1990, it has been stated that the accused Jai Pal
gave a pharsi-blow on the head of Sohan Lal while Raj Pal
gave a lathi-blow on his head. The same is the statements
in court of the alleged eyewitnesses, PW 9 Hira Lal and PW
10 Zile Singh. A pharsi is a weapon that causes an incised
wound like an axe. However, there is no incised wound on
the body of Sohan Lal, as is evident from the post-mortem
report. There are four injuries on the dead body of Sohan
Lal as found by Dr Sushil Goyal's post-mortem report
conducted on 5-8-1990 at 6.05 p.m. One of these wounds
was a lacerated wound on the head, while the other
wounds were contusions on the shoulder. There is no
incised wound. Thus, there is a clear inconsistency
between the ocular version and the medical version .
19. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) , (2003) 6 SCC 380: 2003
SCC OnLine SC 630   that where the medical evidence shows the
total absence of the injuries that can be caused by a weapon
described by the witnesses, an inference can be drawn that the
testimonies of the witnesses are not truthful. It was observed at
page 389:
16.  The conflict between oral testimony and medical
evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

14
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
may be a case where there is a total absence of injuries that
are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is
another category where though the injuries found on the
victim are of the type that are possible by the weapon of
assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not
exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon.
The third category can be where the injuries found on the
victim are those that are normally caused by the weapon of
assault, but they are not found on that portion of the body
where they are deposed to have been caused by the
eyewitnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn
in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and
medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category,
it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence
regarding assault having been made from a particular
weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third
categories, no such inference can straight away be drawn.
The manner and method of assault, the position of the
victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity
available to the witnesses to see the occurrence, such as
their distance, presence of light and many other similar
factors, will have to be taken into consideration in judging
the reliability of ocular testimony.
20. In the present case also, the opinion of the Medical
Officer that injury could have been caused by means of a blunt
weapon and absence of the incised wound, which are likely to be
caused by the sharp side of darat would make the prosecution's
case highly suspect and the learned Appellate Court was justified
in doubting the prosecution's case.
21. Informant Veena Devi (PW1) denied in her cross-
examination that Prakash Chand was armed with darat and that
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

15
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
he had inflicted an injury on the head of Raj Kumar. She denied
that Prakash Chand had inflicted an injury on the face of Bishan
Dass with the blunt side of the darat and his two teeth were
broken. Prakash Chand (PW2) denied that he had inflicted injury
by means of the darat on the head of Raj Kumar or had used the
blunt side of the darat to inflict injury on the face of Bishan Dass.
Lokesh Kumar (PW3) admitted in his cross-examination that Raj
Kumar had a bleeding injury on his head, but he could not say
how this injury was sustained by Raj Kumar. Sandeep Kumar
(PW6) also admitted that Raj Kumar had sustained a bleeding
injury on his head, but he could not say how this injury was
sustained. Therefore, the fact that Raj Kumar had sustained a
bleeding injury on his head was duly established on record.
However, the prosecution witnesses have not provided any
explanation for the injuries sustained by Raj Kumar. 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 makes the prosecution’s case doubtful. 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
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

16
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
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 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
cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

17
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
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.”
23. Therefore, the non-explanation of the injuries would
make the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses doubtful.
24. Prakash Chand (PW2) admitted in his cross-
examination that one case was registered against him for beating
Raj Kumar, in which the informant was also an accused.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

18
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
Therefore, it is undisputed that a cross-case is arising out of the
same incident. The informant and her husband would have a
tendency to shift the blame towards the accused to save
themselves from punishment. Therefore, their testimonies were
required to be duly corroborated by independent witnesses.
25. Lokesh Kumar (PW3) and Sandeep Kumar (PW6) were
stated to have reached the spot after hearing the cries and
rescued the informant party from the accused. However, neither
of them supported the prosecution's case. They denied that they
had heard any noise, and they rescued the informant party from
the accused. They were permitted to be cross-examined by
learned APP, but they did not admit the prosecution's case that
the accused had inflicted blows on the informant party, and they
had rescued the informant party from the accused. Thus, there is
no corroboration from the independent witnesses.
26. The medical evidence also does not support the
prosecution's case because the weapon of offence was stated to
be blunt, which contradicts the prosecution's case that the injury
was caused by a darat, a sharp-edged weapon. Therefore, there
was no corroboration from the medical evidence as well.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

19
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
27. It is undisputed that the civil suits are pending
between the parties. This fact was mentioned in the FIR. The
informant Veena Devi (PW1) also admitted in her cross-
examination that Raj Kumar has filed a civil suit regarding the
validity of the Will. Prakash Chand (PW2) also admitted in his
cross-examination that the case was pending between the
parties in a Court at Palampur. Therefore, the relationship
between the parties was strained. Learned Appellate Court had
rightly held that the strained relationship would put the Court on
guard regarding the possible false implication.
28. Therefore, the prosecution's version was full of
discrepancies, and the learned Appellate Court had taken a
reasonable view while acquitting the accused. This Court will not
interfere with the reasonable view of the Court acquitting the
accused unless there is some perversity. In the present case,
there is no perversity, and no interference is required with the
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court.
29. No other point was urged.
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS

20
2026:HHC:29467
High Court of H.P.
30. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
31. 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 ₹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 receipt of notice thereof, shall appear
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
32. Records be sent back to the learned Courts below
forthwith, along with a copy of the judgment.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
th
20 July, 2026
(Nikita)
::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2026 15:06:11 :::CIS