Non-explanation of injuries on the accused and contradiction with medical evidence necessitates acquittal in cross-case scenarios.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 30.08.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra, which overturned a Trial Court conviction of the respondents under Sections 323, 325, and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on a field dispute, Raj Kumar assaulted Veena Devi (PW1) and inflicted a darat (sickle) blow on the arm of Parkash Chand (PW2), causing a fracture.

The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the victims' testimonies.

However, the Appellate Court acquitted them, noting material contradictions, the presence of a cross-case, and the failure of independent witnesses (PW3 and PW6) to support the prosecution.

The Court applied the standard of appellate review in acquittals, holding that interference is warranted only in cases of "patent perversity" or misreading of material evidence, as established in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh.

It applied the principle from Amar Singh v. State of Punjab and Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh), which mandates that a fundamental inconsistency between ocular testimony (claiming sharp weapon use) and medical evidence (finding blunt force injuries) discredits the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, it relied on Parshuram v. State of M.P., which holds that the non-explanation of injuries on the accused suggests the suppression of the true genesis of the incident.

The Court found that while PW2 claimed an injury from the sharp side of a darat, the medical officer (PW5) categorized the injury as caused by a blunt object and did not find any incised wounds.

This contradiction categorized the case as one where the oral testimony regarding the weapon is "not truthful".

Additionally, despite evidence that the accused Raj Kumar sustained a bleeding head injury, the prosecution witnesses denied this, leaving the injuries unexplained.

The Court observed that the presence of a cross-case and pending civil litigation between the parties necessitated independent corroboration, which was absent as PW3 and PW6 turned hostile.

Consequently, the Appellate Court's view was deemed reasonable and not perverse.

The High Court upheld the Appellate Court’s judgment of acquittal, finding no grounds to interfere with a plausible view.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437-A of the CrPC to ensure appearance if further challenged.