The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal. Finding that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, unsupported by medical or recovery testimony, and failed to prove guilt, the court held the trial judgment stood.
The criminal appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 397 of 2008 Reserved on: 23.05.2017 Decided on: 01.06.2017 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant Versus Chuni Lal & another ……Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ____________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG. For the respondents : Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present criminal appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 17.03.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in Police challan No. 260-II/2003.
accused/respondent No. 1, Chuni Lal has expired, now the appeal against him stands abated.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
as per the prosecution story are that on 02.10.2003, at about 2.00 p.m., Bansi Lal/complainant (hereinafter to be called as “the complainant”) has gone to cut the grass from his land, at Village Nabahi. When he reached at the spot he noticed that the Chuni Lal (respondent No. 1) and his son Arun Sharma (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter to be called as the “accused persons”) were cutting trees from his land. When complainant asked them about the same, accused persons tied him with rope in their courtyard and gave beatings to the complainant. The complainant was rescued
by Ishwar Dass, President, Gram Panchayat Nabahi. On next day, the matter was reported to the Police, on the basis of which, FIR, under Sections 342, 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the accused.
as many as 8 witnesses. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 17.03.2008, acquitted the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 342, 323
and 325, read with Section 34 IPC, hence the present appeal.
argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and accused/respondent No. 2 is liable to be convicted for the offences, he was charged with. On the other hand learned counsel for the accused-respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and even the Investigating Officer has not appeared in the present case as witness, the recovery of the plants has not been affected by the prosecution. He has further argued that as per the medical examination, no injuries were found on the accused persons and no trees were recovered from their possession. There is also variation in statement of the complainant given by him in the Court and in his complaint, Ex. PW-1/A. In rebuttal, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the prosecution has duly proved the injuries sustained by the accused persons and also proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, thus the present
judgment of acquittal, passed by learned trial Court is required to be set aside and accused/respondent No. 2 is liable to be convicted for the offences, he was charged with.
on 02.10.2003, at about 2.30 p.m., when he has gone to cut the grass from his land, he noticed that Chuni Lal and his son were cutting the trees from his land, when he asked
them about this, they gave beatings to him, prior to taking him to their courtyard and then tied him with rope at their courtyard. He further deposed that when Arun Lal alongwith Ishwar Dass, President, Gram Panchayat Nabahi, came
there, they rescued the complainant from the accused persons. In his cross-examination, he denied that he has any dispute with the accused persons and so he is falsely implicating them.
Nabahi, has denied that on 02.10.2003 at about 3.15 p.m., Arun Kumar has come to his shop and told him that
accused persons have tied Bansi Lal, with rope, in their courtyard and he rescued the complainant. PW-3, Gian Chand, who was the witness of recovery memo Ext. PW-3/A, through which rope was taken into possession, has specifically denied the recovery of the rope. PW-6, Inspector, Aashish Sharma, has registered the FIR, Ext. PW6/A and prepared the challan in the present case. PW-7, Dr. P.C. Saini, has medically examined the complainant and issued MLC Ext. PW-7/A. Other witnesses are the formal witnesses.
his complaint, Ext. PW-1/A, he deposed that he was beaten
by the accused persons at their courtyard.
fact that there is material contradiction even in the statement of the complainant, and as no other witness has supported the case of the prosecution, Investigation Officer was not examined and recovery was not proved, so this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to proved the guilt of the accused at all.
Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258, that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified.
vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401, has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves dismissal and
is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall
also stands disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
1st June, 2017
(raman)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court acquittal should be set aside when prosecution evidence contained contradictions and was unpersuasive.
Whether the High Court can reverse an acquittal when two reasonable views are possible from the evidence.
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences under IPC Sections 342, 323, 325, and 34.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Prakashan vs. P.K. SurenderanRelied on¶36
K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 · Who else cites this
T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶38
T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Himachal Pradesh
Chuni Lal
Arun Sharma
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
