Dismissed¶55

State of Hp v. Sandeep Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Dec 2025CR.A/106/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh HC (Rakesh Kainthla, J.) dismisses State's criminal appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 2014, decided 17.12.2025) against JMFC Jawali (Kangra) acquittal under Section 324 IPC of Sandeep Kumar for bottle assault on informant Budhi Singh at Village Sihal marriage (2011); appellate restraint where two reasonable views possible (Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand; P. Somaraju v. State of A.P.); hostile witnesses PW-1/PW-2, bottle production unproved, Site Plan silent on broken glass, no fingerprints/FSL, no blood-stain proof, adverse inference for withholding independent witnesses, defective investigation — State cannot blow hot and cold; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondent/accused (Sandeep Kumar) by the learned Trial Court was upheld.

State of Hp Vs Sandeep Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant-State; the acquittal of the respondent/accused (Sandeep Kumar) by the learned Trial Court was upheld.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court suffered from patent perversity, or was based on a misreading/omission of material evidence, such that this Court could interfere with it and set the acquittal aside. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Deciding the appeal as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for appeals against acquittal, the Court concluded that the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view and that this Court should not interfere with a reasonable view even if another view is possible; accordingly the acquittal was upheld.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

The Site Plan (Ex. PW-5/C) did not mention that any broken pieces of the bottle were found on the spot, although their recovery would have materially corroborated the informant's testimony that the injury was inflicted on the spot by a broken bottle.

¶41

Key takeaways

The prosecution's version that the accused, Sandeep Kumar, produced the broken bottle (seized in the presence of Vinod Kumar (PW-2) and Vishal Sharma (PW-1)) was not proved by independent evidence, as neither of those witnesses supported it.ratio¶42
There was nothing on record to establish that the bottle seized by the police bore any blood stains, or that any such stains, if present, were related to the informant/victim.ratio¶45
Dr Vivek Sood (PW-4) admitted in cross-examination that the injuries could have been caused by falling on sharp glass pieces, and this admission assumed significance because the bottle recovered by the police did not contain any blood stains.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla (Rakesh Kainthla, J.), Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 2014, decided 17.12.2025 — State of H.P.'s appeal against the acquittal (judgment dated 13.11.2013, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawali, District Kangra) of Sandeep Kumar, charged under Section 324 IPC for allegedly inflicting a bottle blow on the head of informant Budhi Singh, who had set up a tent and supplied crockery at a marriage at Village Sihal (12.10.2011). Deciding the appeal under the Supreme Court's parameters for interference with acquittals (Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand; P. Somaraju v. State of A.P. — interference warranted only for patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible), the Court found the Trial Court's doubts justified: the informant saw the bottle (weapon of offence) for the first time in Court; the Site Plan did not record broken glass pieces on the spot; the alleged production of the bottle by the accused stood uncorroborated as Vishal Sharma (PW-1) and Vinod Kumar (PW-2) turned hostile; no fingerprints were lifted and the bottle was not sent to the FSL; nothing on record established blood stains on the bottle or their linkage to the victim, giving weight to Dr Vivek Sood's admission that the injuries could have been caused by falling on sharp glass pieces; and, many persons being present at the marriage, an adverse inference was rightly drawn against the prosecution for withholding independent witnesses. On defective investigation, the Court held that the State, having itself appointed the Investigating Officer and taken no action against him, could not blow hot and cold by protecting him while denouncing his work before the Court. Holding the Trial Court's view reasonable, the Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the acquittal, and directed return of the trial records with a copy of the judgment.

¶1

( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 2014 Reserved on: 24.11.2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025.

¶4

State of H.P. ...Appellant. Versus Sandeep Kumar ...Respondent.

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Appellant	:	Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent	:	Mr Amit Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawali, District Kangra (H.P) (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were

¶10

arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

¶11

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

¶12

2 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶13

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 an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Budhi Singh (PW-3), had set up a tent at Village Sihal in the house of Chaman Lal on 12.10.2011. He went to collect his articles at about 12:30 pm, and found that forty-five spoons and five plates were missing. When he questioned the accused, Sandeep Kumar, s/o Chaman Singh, about the shortage, the accused asked the informant to wait and subsequently inflicted a blow on the informant's head by means of a bottle. The informant sustained bleeding injuries on his head and was subsequently taken to the hospital. An intimation in this regard was given to the police. SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. The informant made a statement (Ex. PW-3/A), which was sent to the Police Station, leading to the registration of the FIR (Ex. PW-5/A). SI Chaman Lal filed an application (Ex. PW-5/B) for conducting the Medical Examination of the informant/victim. Dr Vivek Sood (PW-4) conducted the examination and found that the victim, Budhi Singh, had sustained multiple injuries which could have

¶14

3 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶15

been caused by means of a broken bottle. He issued the MLC (Ex. PW-4/A). SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) proceeded to the spot and prepared the Site Plan (Ex. PW-5/C). He seized the broken bottle (Ex. P-1) from the accused. The bottle was sealed in a cloth parcel with a seal impression 'C'. The seal impression (Ex. PW-5/D) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Vinod Kumar after use. The bottle was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-1/A). After recording the statements of the witnesses as per their version and completing the necessary investigation, the Challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

¶16

Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to charge the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶17

The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. Vishal Sharma (PW1) and Vinod Kumar (PW2) did not support the prosecution’s case. Budhi Singh (PW3) is the informant/victim. Dr Vivek Sood (PW4) medically examined the informant/victim. SI Chaman Lal (PW5) investigated the matter.

¶18

4 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶19

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, admitted that marriage was being solemnised in his family in village TutwaN Sihal. He admitted that the informant had supplied Crockery and a tent. He denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. He stated that the witnesses were interested and they deposed falsely against him He did not adduce any defence evidence.

¶20

The learned Trial Court held that it was an admitted case of the informant/victim that many persons had gathered at the spot; however, the prosecution failed to associate any independent witness. The informant did not identify the weapon of offence. The entry in the daily diary was not produced. Vishal Sharma (PW-1) and Vinod Kumar (PW-2) were declared hostile, and their testimonies did not advance the prosecution’s case. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.

¶21

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 view the

¶22

5 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶23

prosecution’s case in its proper perspective. The statement of the informant was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The benefit of defective investigation should not have been granted to the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶24

I have heard Mr Prashant Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

¶25

Mr Prashant Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The medical evidence corroborated the informant’s statement. The mere fact that two witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case should not have been used to disbelieve the informant’s testimony. The failure to join independent witnesses should not have been used to discard the prosecution’s evidence. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶26

6 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶27

Mr Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the informant did not identify the broken pieces of the bottle, and his testimony was rightly discarded by the learned Trial Court. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police, which rendered the prosecution’s case suspect. The learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while deciding the matter, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

¶28

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶29

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:

¶30

7 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶31

“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 of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”

¶32

This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of

¶33

A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed:

¶34

“ 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 .”

¶35

The present appeal has to be decided as per the

¶36

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶37

8 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶38

The informant, Budhi Singh, stated in his testimony that he had set up a tent in the Government Primary School. He counted the crockery and found there was a shortage. When he questioned the accused about the missing crockery, the accused called some boys, picked up a bottle, and inflicted an injury on his (informant's) head. The informant called the Pradhan (Ravinder Singh), who took him to the hospital. He stated in his cross-examination that he saw the bottle (weapon of offence) in the Court for the first time. The bottle was not seized in his presence, and he was unaware of who had handed over the bottle to the police. His statement was recorded at about 2:30 P.M. – 3:00 P.M. He sustained a bleeding injury, and his clothes were blood-stained. He denied the suggestions that he failed to properly serve the "Baratis" (wedding party), and he filed a false case to save himself.

¶39

The statement of this witness (Budhi Singh) that he had informed the Pradhan on the next day, who then took him to the hospital, and that the police recorded his statement at about 2:30 P.M. – 3:00 P.M., is contrary to the statement of SI Chaman Lal (PW-5), who stated that he had recorded the informant's statement at 4:00 am.

¶40

9 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶41

SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the Site Plan (Ex. PW-5/C). Significantly, the Site Plan (Ex. PW-5/C) does not mention that any broken pieces of the bottle were found on the spot. The recovery of broken pieces of the bottle would have materially corroborated the informant’s testimony that the injury was inflicted on the spot by a broken bottle.

¶42

SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) stated that the accused, Sandeep Kumar, produced the broken bottle, which was seized by him in the presence of Vinod Kumar (PW-2) and Vishal Sharma (PW-1). However, neither of these witnesses has supported the prosecution’s case regarding the recovery of the bottle. Thus, the prosecution’s version regarding the production of the broken bottle by the accused is not proved by the independent evidence.

¶43

SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) admitted in his crossexamination that he had not lifted the fingerprints from the bottle and had not sent the bottle to the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory). Thus, there is nothing on record to establish that

¶44

10 ( 2025:HHC:43993 )

¶45

the bottle seized by the police bore any blood stains or that those stains, if present, were related to the informant/victim.

¶46

It is undisputed that a marriage ceremony was being solemnised. The informant admitted in his cross-examination that many people were present at the marriage. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding the independent witnesses.

¶47

It was submitted that this was a case of defective investigation and that the benefit of such investigation cannot be given to the accused. The State itself appointed the Investigating Officer, and if the State was of the opinion that the Investigating Officer had not performed his duty properly, it was bound to take action against him. However, there is nothing on record to show that any action was taken against the Investigating Officer. The State cannot blow hot and cold by protecting the Investigating Officer while simultaneously denouncing his work before the Court.

¶48