Dismissed¶184

State of Hp v. Arjun

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2025CR.A/350/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal; scope of interference limited to perversity, misreading of evidence or no-two-views; Sections 363, 366-A IPC kidnapping/enticement of minor girl; contradictions in testimony of PW-1, PW-2 (prosecutrix) and PW-3 (father); non-examination of material witness Ishita; refusal of medical examination drawing adverse inference; proof of age of prosecutrix - matriculation certificate photocopy, Gram Panchayat birth register, radiological/ossification test 15 to 19 years; benefit of doubt on material contradictions; Sessions Trial No. 33-S/7 of 2011, Special Judge Shimla; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Cr. Appeal No. 350 of 2015, decided 09.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the State; acquittal of the respondent upheld and the bail bonds furnished by the respondent discharged. ¶184

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the State; acquittal of the respondent upheld and the bail bonds furnished by the respondent discharged.

¶184

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla suffers from perversity such as to warrant interference, given that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is permissible only when the findings below are perverse and dehors the evidence. +2 more

¶92

Court's answer

The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited: interference is permissible only where the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible.

¶139

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution story is full of contradictions and inconsistencies - conflicting accounts of when the prosecutrix left home on 17.07.2011 (PW-1: 1:30 p.m. to Kasumpti market; prosecutrix: 8:00 a.m. to school), contradictory evidence on mobile-phone contact among PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the father Ranger Lal's irreconcilable versions, and PW-12's school record showing the prosecutrix absent from 16.07.2011 onwards - rendering the story highly improbable and unworthy of credence.

¶166

Key takeaways

Ishita, the prosecutrix's friend who allegedly disclosed the telephonic contact between the accused and the prosecutrix, was a material witness to unfold the prosecution story but was neither cited in the list of witnesses nor examined by the prosecution.ratio¶148
The prosecutrix, despite levelling serious allegations and coming forward to prosecute the accused, refused to undergo medical examination, which draws an adverse inference against the prosecution.ratio¶167
The prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time: the photocopied matriculation certificate (Ext.P-1) was not proved in accordance with law, the birth-certificate entries (Ext.PW6/A) rested on earlier entries of unproved origin, and the radiological opinion fixed her age between 15 and 19 years, whose upper limit does not fall within the definition of a minor; consequently the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Romesh Verma and Vivek Singh Thakur, JJ.; judgment by Romesh Verma, J.) dismisses the State's appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 350 of 2015) against the acquittal by the learned Special Judge, Shimla (Sessions Trial No. 33-S/7 of 2011, judgment dated 31.03.2015) of the respondent of charges under Sections 363, 366-A IPC (FIR No. 82/2011, PS East Shimla). Reiterating that interference with an acquittal is warranted only for patent perversity, misreading or omission of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible, the Court finds the prosecution story full of contradictions and inconsistencies: conflicting accounts of the prosecutrix's movement on 17.07.2011 (PW-1: left for market at 1:30 p.m.; prosecutrix: left for school at 8:00 a.m.), contradictory evidence on mobile-phone contact (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3), the father's irreconcilable dates (learning of the disappearance on 25.07.2011; medical examination on 26.07.2011), school records showing absence from 16.07.2011 onwards belying the alleged school attendance, non-examination of the material witness Ishita, improbability of the cart-road and Parwanoo hotel episode, unproved mode of travel to Parwanoo, and the prosecutrix's refusal of medical examination drawing an adverse inference. The prosecution also failed to prove minority: the photocopied matriculation certificate was not proved according to law, the birth-register entries were of unverified origin, and the radiological/ossification opinion fixed age between 15 and 19 years, the upper limit falling outside the definition of a minor. Acquittal affirmed; appeal dismissed; bail bonds discharged.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 350 of 2015 Reserved on 20.11.2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of H.P. ...Appellant. Versus

¶4

Arjun ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

...Respondent .

¶6

For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General For the respondent : Mr. Shanti Swaroop, Advocate. 4.___________________________________________________ Romesh Verma, Judge

¶7

The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Special Judge, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 33-S/7 of 2011, on 31.03.2015, whereby the present respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 363,366-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) in case FIR No. 82/2011,dated 18.07.2011, registered at Police Station (East) Shimla, H.P.

¶8

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

¶9

2 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶10

The case of the prosecution as projected is that

¶11

on 18.07.2011, Sh. Dharminder son of Sh. Gopi Lal, r/o village Khashdhar, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, HP made a complaint to the police that he is resident of village Khashdhar and is working in HDFC, Bank. He is residing with his mother and niece (here-in-after referred to as the prosecutrix) at Uma Bhawan, Apple Garden,Kasumpti on rent basis. The prosecutrix is a student of 10+2 class in Portmore School. On 17.07.2011, at about 1:30 p.m. the prosecutrix went to the market and she did not come back till evening nor she informed anyone about the same. She was searched, however, she could not be found. As a result of which, he made a complaint at Police Post Kasumpti about her missing. Lateron, he came to know that one boy namely Arjun, who resides near Bus Stand, Shimla, used to telephonically call the prosecutrix. In his neighbour one girl namely Ishita told him that Arjun used to come alongwith vehicle there and he has suspicion that his niece has been enticed by Arjun by making a false promise of marriage and must have run away alongwith him. Therefore, he stated

¶12

3 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶13

that a legal action be taken against Arjun. The complainant

¶14

further submitted that the date of birth of his niece is 29.09.1994 and she is about 17 years of age. The matter was investigated and the prosecutrix was recovered alongwith accused Arjun son of Sh. Hari Dass, resident of Sikh Line 309/1 Krishna Nagar, Shimla. On the spot she was identified by her Uncle Sh. Dharminder. After identifying, the prosecutrix was handed over to her Uncle Dharminder. During the investigation, Dharminder provided one photocopy of matriculation certificate to the police and the same was taken on record. Thereafter, both the prosecutrix and accused Arjun were taken to IGMC, Shimla for their medical examination. The prosecution refused for her medical examination and for determining her age, x-ray was taken and as per report of Radiologist, her age was found to be 15 to 19 years old. During the investigation, accused Arjun told that on 19.07.2011 at about 1;30 a.m.in the night, he alongwith the prosecutrix reched at Parwanoo from Shimla and stayed there for about two hours at Amritsari Dhaba at Parwanoo. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix was obtained from the Secretary, Gram

¶15

4 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶16

Panchayat Khashdhar and according to him, the age of the prosecutrix is 16 years and 10 months. Therefore, a primafacie case under Section 363,366-A of IPC was registered against the respondent-accused Arjun.

¶17

On completion of investigation, the police

¶18

presented the challan against the accused person in the Court for the offence punishable under Sections 363,366-A of IPC

¶19

During the trial before the learned court below, accused person (respondent herein) was charged for offence punishable under Sections 363,366-A of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial.

¶20

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses in all. Thereafter, respondent was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating material and took the defence that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. However, respondent did not examine any witness in his defence.

¶21

The learned court below, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent,

¶22

5 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶23

as aforesaid, constraining the appellant-State to file the instant appeal.

¶24

Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General would argue that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are totally perverse and therefore, deserve to be set aside.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Shanti Swaroop Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment and urged that since the same is based on evidence, it warrants no interference.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

parties and have also gone through the records of the case in detail.

¶28

S.I. Liaq Ram, SHO P.S Jubbal, District Shimla

¶29

has appeared in the witness box as PW-14. In his statement, he has stated that FIR No.82/11 was entrusted to him. On 19.07.2014, the uncle of the prosecutrix handed over to him the photocopy of the matriculation certificate which is Ex.P-1 and as per certificate, the age of the prosecutrix was about 16 years and 10 months. The said certificate was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B.

¶30

6 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶31

This memo was witnessed by Sh. Jag Mohan Chauhan(PW7) and Sh. Bhupender Sharma (PW8) Thereafter, search for the prosecutrix was made and on 19.07.2011 at about 11:00 a.m, the prosecutrix and accused Arjun were found in the area known as Krishana Nagar near temple. It is stated by this witness that the prosecutrix was identified by her uncle Sh. Dharminder and the custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to her uncle vide memo Ext.PW1/C. Thereafter, the prosecutrix as well as the accused were sent to IGMC, Shimla for their medical examination. The application qua the medico-legalexamination of prosecutrix is Ext.PW10/D. The MLC of accused is Ex.PW9/A, whereas the MLC of prosecutrix is Ex.PW10/A. During investigation, he obtained the birth certificate of the prosecutrix which is ExPW6/A. Similarly, he also obtained the certificate ExPW12/A from the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Portmore and the statement of the prosecutrix is Ex.PW14/G.

¶32

In the cross examination, PW-14 stated that the investigation was entrusted to him in the present case on 18.07.2011 at about 9:00 p.m. When the investigation was

¶33

7 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶34

entrusted to him, the uncle of the prosecutrix met him at 9:00 p.m on that day in police station. He demanded the mobile phone number of the prosecutrix which was found to be switched off. Dharminder (PW-1) produced the certificate and thereafter, they had proceeded towards Krishana Nagar in order to search the prosecutrix and accused. Neither the prosecutrix produced mobile phone before him nor the accused disclosed about the bus number, hence, he did not make any effort to locate the driver as well as the conductor of the said bus. When they noticed the prosecutrix,they were standing near the temple. He stated that he did not make any effort to associate any other witness except Dharminder and Jagmohan. He denied that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶35

Dharminder s/o Sh. Gopi Nath appeared in the witness box as PW-1, being uncle of the prosecutrix. He stated that he was serving in HDFC Bank at Shimla and residing in a rented accommodation owned by Smt. Uma along with his mother and his niece(Prosecutrix). The prosecutrix was studying in Govt. Senior Secondary School Portmore, Shimla in 10+2 Class. On 17.07.2011 the

¶36

8 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶37

prosecutrix at about 1:30 p.m went from house to Kasumpti market and did not return back till evening. Therefore they searched for her but her whereabouts were not known. Then he reported the matter at Police Post Kasumpti regarding missing of his niece. He tried to locate her and came to know that accused named Arjun, resident of Shimla used to talk on telephone with her and one girl named Ishita also disclosed to him that accused used to come in the vehicle to meet his niece. He stated that he remained associated in the investigation of this case. The date of birth of his niece is 29.09.1994. He has further stated that he handed over to the police attested copy of date of birth certificate Ext. P-1 which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. PW-1/B which bears his signature. PW-1 stated that the prosecutrix was located in Krishna Nagar and he identified her.

¶38

In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not know about the place where the prosecutrix was born either in Shimla or in their village. The entry regarding the factum of birth of the prosecutrix might have been got entered by the parents of the prosecutrix. It is further stated

¶39

9 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶40

by him that at the relevant time, prosecutrix was not having any mobile phone number with her nor he was having the mobile number of the accused. It is also stated by PW-1that at the time of recording missing report, he had not raised his suspicion against anyone. Further, it is stated that friend of the prosecutrix namely Ishita was residing at Kasumpti. After lodging the missing report of the prosecutrix, he contacted Ishita, who disclosed to him that the accused and prosecutrix were having telephonic conversation. He denied that the prosecutrix was in the habit of leaving the house without the consent of elders. He denied that a false case has been registered against the accused.

¶41

PW-2 (prosecutrix) stated that in the year 2011, she was residing with her uncle (Chacha) Dharminder at Mehli in a rented accommodation and she was studying in Government Senior Secondary School Portmore in class 10+2 (medical). She stated that accused was known to her for the last two months prior to the occurrence. He used to telephone her on mobile phone. She further stated that she used to refuse to attend the calls of accused. On 17.07.2011, accused at about 5:00 p.m called her on

¶42

10 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶43

telephone and came to receive her néar Himland. She further stated that he took her in his vehicle to different places upto 7:00 p.m and allured her to get married and took her in his vehicle up to Parwanoo. He took her to a hotel in Parwanoo and remained there and thereafter came back to

¶44

Shimla next day. It is further stated that she was having mobile phone with her but battery of the same was taken away by the accused and he had thrown the same. Further she has stated that accused took her to Parwanoo without her consent. At the request of the police she refused for her medical examination. At that time, her father accompanied her. She has stated that her date of birth is 29.09.1994.

¶45

In her cross-examination, she has stated that Ishita and Poonam were her close friends and she disclosed to them about accused. Self stated that she had disclosed them that accused used to ring her. She knew accused for the last two months. They had telephonic conversation on mobile phone. Self stated that she refused to talk with him and told him not to make call to her and they had telephonic conversation once or twice in a day and had talk on their mobile phone for five to ten minutes, self stated that it was

¶46

11 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶47

not regular. She does not remember her mobile number.

¶48

She stated that on 17.7.2011, no conversation took place between her and accused on mobile phone. She stated that she left her house on 17.07.2011 at 8:00 a.m for school. She attended her school upto 4:00 p.m on that day. She admitted that her school was nearby Himland hotel. It took hardly 15 minutes from her school to Himland hotel. She was also attending tuition classes nearby Himland hotel and her tuition class started at 5:00 p.m.. She was waiting for her friends at Himland for tuition class. Ishita was accompanying her at that time. Accused met her at 5:00 p.m at cart road Himland hotel. It is stated by her that before that neither she had telephonic conversation nor she met before 5:00p.m with the accused. She had disclosed whole things to police on 18.07.2011 at about 11:00 a.m in Police Station, Chhota Shimla. She denied that she had not disclosed to the police about her attending of school and going to tuition classes and waiting for her friends near Himland hotel. It is further stated that her house is situated at Melhi. It took half an hour to reach Himland hotel from her house in the bus. When accused took her along with him, she had not disclosed

¶49

12 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶50

these facts to anybody including her friends and relatives. She admitted that there were so many persons present at Himland hotel but the vehicle in which they had gone it was of black colour but she does not remember the number and type of vehicle. Accused was driving the vehicle. She does not remember that after sitting in the vehicle where they had gone. There was nobody in vehicle except accused. They remained roaming on cart road up to 7:00 p.m and the vehicle ultimately stopped at Parwanoo.

¶51

During journey from Shimla to Parwanoo, the vehicle was not stopped anywhere in the way. The vehicle was stopped in a hotel at Parwanoo but she does not know the name of hotel. The hotel was three storeyed. There were many shops nearby the hotel. She had not seen the shops. She does not remember that there were residences, offices or hotels nearby the hotel because it was night at that time. They reached at Parwanoo at about 8:30-9:00 pm. She does not know how many rooms were in the hotel. She remained in the room of hotel. She does not know the number of room and also does not how many waiters and

¶52

people were in the hotel. She admitted that there were

¶53

13 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶54

people and waiters in hotel. She had left the hotel at 7:00 a.m. In the morning, she had noticed that there were many shops. Her phone was working till 7:30 p.m on that day. Her phone was in working condition. Self stated that accused had took out the battery from her mobile phone, however, the cell phone was with her. She had not asked the waiters or staff of hotel whether they have any cell phone or not. She had not made any complaint regarding non-working of landline number of hotel. She further stated that the name of her brother is Banti and uncle is Dharminder. She has stated that police had recorded her statement. Portion ‘A to A’ of Mark-R read over to her and she stated that she did not give such statement to the police. Confronted with portion ‘A to A’ of mark ‘R’ wherein it is so recorded. She can not tell

¶55

that the fact regarding going to Parwanoo in bus had been recorded by police voluntarily. She stated that she knew that the accused belonged to Balmiki community (scheduled caste). She admitted that marriage could not be solemnized by her with the accused due to different cast. She stated that her attendance was marked in the school on 17.07.2011. She further stated that she does not know

¶56

14 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶57

whether the vehicle was private or taxi number in which she

¶58

was taken to Parwanoo.

¶59

PW-3 Ranger Lal s/o Sh Bihari Lal (father of the prosecutrix) stated that in the year 2011, her daughter was studying in 10+2 class at Government Senior Secondary School Portmore and was residing with his brother Dharminder at Mehli. On 17.07.2011, his brother Dharminder telephonically informed him that the prosecutrix had not turned up to house till late evening. On this, he told him that she might have gone with her friend and on next day, he told him to report the matter to the police. Thereafter, he rushed to Shimla on 18.07.2011 and her daughter refused to get herself medically examined as she stated that no sexual assault had taken place.

¶60

In the cross-examination, he has stated that he came to know about missing of his daughter on 25.07.2011 in the night and on next day, he came to Shimla and he had seen his daughter in Police Station on 26.07.2011 in the evening. His brother and police officials were in Police Station at that time. It is further stated that his daughter was having mobile but he could not tell the number. He stated

¶61

15 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶62

that his daughter was medically examined by Doctor on 26.07.2011 at IGMC Shimla. He denied that he is deposing falsely.

¶63

PW-4 H.C Rajinder Singh stated that he remained posted as MHC at Police Station East Shimla w.e.f June 2011 to October 2012. On 18.07.2011, computer of the Police Station was working properly and entry of FIR No.82/11 was entered in the computer. He issued CIPA certificate Ext. PW-4/A which is signed by him. Entry of FIR Ext. PW-4/B was also recorded by him in the computer on the basis of Rukka Ext. PW-1/A written by ASI Het Ram.

¶64

In the cross-examination he stated that constable Pratap Singh had brought rukka at about 9:00 p.m on 18.07.2011. He had taken about half an hour to enter the FIR and thereafter investigation was handed over to ASI Laiq Ram. He denied that entries made in FIR are not correct.

¶65

PW-5 Constable Dinesh No.470 Police Station

¶66

East Shimla District Shimla H.P stated that on 22.07.2011, he remained associated in the investigation of this case. He has stated that accused Arjun who was in police custody

¶67

16 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶68

pointed Amritsari Dhaba and disclosed that he alongwith prosecutrix stayed there on 18/19.07.2011 for two hours and in this regard memo Ext. PW-5/A was prepared in the case which was signed by him.

¶69

In the cross-examination he stated that the accused had given identification of Amritsari Dhaba (restaurant) at Parwanoo on 22.07.2011 between 12 to 2.00 p.m. Accused had never disclosed regarding Dhaba(restaurant) to him, before identification of the Dhaba(restaurant). He did not notice the nearby shops.

¶70

PW-6 Gulab Singh s/o Girja Nand Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Kashdhar. Tehsil Chirgaon District Shimla. H.P. stated that he remained posted as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kashdhar. He had brought the original family register of aforesaid panchayat with him. On the basis of the entries made in this register, he issued certificate of date of birth of prosecutrix. As per register maintained, her date of birth is 29.09.1994 and the certificate is Ext. PW-6/Α.

¶71

In the cross-examination he stated that he has brought original family register in the court. In Ext. PW-6/A

¶72

17 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶73

i.e. copy of family register,the entries made at Sr. No. 313/6

¶74

were made by him on the basis of entries already made in old family register. Again stated that these entries were forwarded from entry No. 291 to 313/6 from the same register. He admitted that entries made at Sr. No. 291 are not in his hand. These entries are in the handwriting of Pawan Kumar, who at that time was Panchayat Secretary. He further stated that he cannot say at whose instance these entries were made. As per routine, the entries in the family register were made by any family member on the written receipt of Pradhan Gram panchayat. He admitted that he has not brought old family register and also the application on the basis of which entries were made.

¶75

PW-7 Jagmohan s/o Sh. Pyare Lal in his statement has stated that he was salesman in Manocha Industry Shimla. On 19.07.2011, Dharminder, uncle of the prosecutrix produced a school certificate Ext. P-1 to the police in which her date of birth was shown 1994 and she was minor. It is further stated that police had taken into possession certificate vide memo Ext PW-1/B. He and Bhupinder had signed as witnesses and Dharminder had

¶76

18 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶77

signed as producer of certificate Ext. P1. He alongwith Bhupinder and Dharminder went to search the prosecurix along with police and when they reached at Krishna Nagar they found prosecutrix and accused roaming there. It has further been stated that Dharminder had identified the prosecutrix and thereafter she and accused were brought to Police Station, Chhota Shimla.

¶78

In the cross-examination, he has stated that he knew Dharminder for the last 18 years and prosecutrix since her birth. He alongwith Dharminder went to the Police Post Kasumpti and thereafter they went to Police Station Chotta Shimla on 18.07.2011 at about 4:30 p.m and nobody was accompanying them. He further stated that he and SHO brought prosecutrix to the Police Station and she was handed over to her father Ranger Chauhan, and father of prosecutrix came to Police Station alongwith his brother-inlaw. He denied that he was deposing falsely being relative of prosecutrix and her uncle.

¶79

PW8 Bhupinder Sharma s/o Sh. Late Satish Sharma stated tscope of interferencehat he was Contractor by profession. On 19.07.2011, he along with

¶80

19 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶81

Jagmohan(PW7) and Dharminder (PW1) remained associated with the police. Dharminder (PW1) produced school certificate Ext. P-1 of the prosecutrix whose date of birth was 29.09.1994 and she was minor. It is stated that Police had taken into possession certificate vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B. He and Jagmohan signed as witnesses and Dharminder signed as producer of document.

¶82

In the cross-examination he has stated that they went to Police Station at about 5:30 P.M. The prosecutrix was handed over to her father Sh. Ranger Lal. He denied that he had given statement to the police that prosecutrix was handed over to his uncle Dharminder.

¶83

PW-9 Dr. Sandeep Kaushik CMO, IGMC, Shimla District Shimla H.P stated that he was posted as Medical Officer casualty, IGMC, Shimla since March 2011. He stated that he had conducted medical examination of the accused and issued MLC Ext.PW9/A.

¶84

PW-10 Dr. Rohini Rao Medical Officer stated that in the year 2011, she was posted as Medical Officer in Kamla Nehru Hospital Shimla H.P. On 19.07.2011 at 7:30 p.m., She examined prosecutrix d/o Ranjan Chauhan aged

¶85

20 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶86

17 years who was brought by the police being sexually assaulted with the alleged history of run away with some known person named Arjun and stayed away from home for two days. She further stated that the opinion regarding the sexual intercourscope of interferencese cannot be given as the prosecutrix at the time of examination on 19.07.2011 at 7:30 p.m. refused for examination of unexposed parts and local examination of genitalia. As per the Radiological, opinion given, her age is between 15 to 19 years. In this regard she issued MLC, Ext. PW-10/A

¶87

PW-11, Sudhir Kumar s/o late Sh. Ram Saran r/o House No.202 Ward No.7 Upper Street Nahan District Sirmour stated that in the year 2011, he was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station East Shimla. On 18.07.2011 rukka Ext. PW-1/A written by ASI P.P Kasumpti was received in Police Station through constable Partap Singh. He stated that he had registered FIR Ext. PW-4/B on the basis of rukka which bears his seal and signature.

¶88

PW-12 Smt. Nisha Bhaluni, Principal, Govt Senior Secondary School, Portmore, Shimla, H.P stated that she was officiating as Principal in Government Senior

¶89

21 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶90

Secondary School Portmore. As per attendance register maintained in the school, prosecutrix was student of medical +2. She has further stated that she was absent from school on 16.07.2011 onwards and her school leaving certificate was issued on 19.08.2011 due to her long absence from the school. On the basis of record, she Issued certificate Ext. PW-12/A.

¶91

Learned Special Judge vide its judgment dated 31.03.2015 acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 363,366-A of I.P.C. The State feeling aggrieved by the said judgment has preferred the present appeal.

¶92

The Hon’ble Apex Court in its various decisions has discussed and elaborated the scope of interference in the appeal of acquittal by the Appellate Courts. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the scope of interference in an appeal of acquittal is permissible only when the findings of the Court below are perverse and dehors the evidence .

¶93

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 433 has held as under:-

¶94

22 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶95

23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: (SCC pp.163-64, para 38-41)

¶96

“38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.

¶97

39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471: (2022) 2 SCC(Cri)31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29)

¶98

“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case⁷ , SCC p.432,para 42)

¶99

‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

¶100

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶101

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 puts no limitation restriction on condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

¶102

(3)Variousexpressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”,“good and sufficient grounds” “very strong circumstances ”,“distortedconclusions”,“glaring mistakes”,etc. Are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise

¶103

23 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶104

the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶105

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶106

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.’ ”

¶107

40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8)

¶108

“8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

¶109

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

¶110

8.3. 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;

¶111

8.4. 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

¶112

8.5. 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

¶113

24 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶114

was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

¶115

41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

¶116

41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

¶117

41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

¶118

41.3. 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.”

¶119

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.”

¶120

36. In the case of Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund

¶121

and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024

¶122

(4) SCALE, 513 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as

¶123

under:-

¶124

“9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warrated Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only

¶125

25 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶126

refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below:

¶127

“13.In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:-

¶128

"In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.

¶129

Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded."

¶130

Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has held that:-

¶131

"No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same.”

¶132

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to

¶133

Appeal (Crl.) Dy. 23115/2025, titled as Brijesh Singh vs.

¶134

State of U.P., decided on 18.6.2025, has held as under:-

¶135

“Law is well settled that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be made only if the view taken by the Courts below is perverse or if no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is to record the guilt of the accused. In the present case, we do not find any view other than that taken by the trial Court

¶136

26 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶137

and affirmed by the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges is permissible.”

¶138

From the perusal of the judgments of the Apex

¶139

Court, it will be clear that the interference in such cases of acquittal is very limited and it is permissible only in the case of perversity. Now coming to the factual matrix of the case. It will be clear that the story as projected by the prosecution is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

¶140

PW-1, who is the complainant in the present case and being real uncle of the prosecutrix has stated in his statement that on 17.07.2011, the prosecutrix at about 1:30 p.m. went from the house to Kasumpti market and did not return back till evening. He searched for her but her whereabouts were not known. Then he reported the matter at Police Post, Kasumpti. The said statement of PW-1 is contrary to the statement as made by the prosecutrix, who stated in her cross examination that on 17.07.2011 she left her house at 8.00 a.m. in the morning for school. Then, she stated that she attended her school up to 4.00 p.m. on the same day. This is a material contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix and her real uncle and both have varied on this aspect.

¶141

27 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶142

Perusal of the statement of PW-1 reveals that he

¶143

has stated in his cross examination that the prosecutrix was not having any mobile phone number with her nor she was having mobile number of the accused. On the contrary, PW-2 prosecutrix stated that the accused was known to her for the last two months prior to the occurrence and accused used to telephone her on mobile phone. She stated that she used to refuse to attend the calls of accused. On 17.07.2011, accused at about 5.00 p.m. called her on telephone and came to receive her near Himland. Further, in her cross examination, she stated that they had a telephonic conversation on mobile phones. She stated that she refused

¶144

to talk with him and told him not to make call to her. They had telephonic conversation once or twice in a day and they used to talk on their mobile phones for 5 to 10 minutes. PW3 the father of the prosecutrix has stated that his daughter was having a mobile phone but he can not tell the number. Therefore, there are major contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.

¶145

It has come in the statement of PW-1 that at the time of recording of the missing report, he did not raise any

¶146

28 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶147

suspicion against anyone. The friend of the prosecutrix, namely Ishita, was residing at Kasumpti and after lodging the missing report he contacted Ishita, who disclosed to him that accused and prosecutrix were having telephone conversation.

¶148

Interestingly, said Ishita has not been examined by the prosecution to the reasons known to them. Ishita who is stated to be a friend of prosecutrix was a material witness to unfold the story of the prosecution, but neither she was cited in the list of witnesses nor any attempt has been made by the prosecution to examine her in order to substantiate its case.

¶149

Perusal of the statement of father of the prosecutrix namely Ranger Lal would show that it is full of contradictions. In the chief, he has stated that his daughter was studying in 10+2 in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Portmore. On 17.07.2011, his brother telephonically informed him that prosecutrix has not turned up to home till late evening. On the next day, he told his brother to report the matter to the police and then he rushed to Shimla on 18.07.2011. However, in the cross-examination

¶150

29 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶151

he has different story to tell where by he has stated that he came to know about missing of his daughter on 25.07.2011 in the night and on next day he came to Shimla. He stated that he had seen his daughter in the Police Station on 26.07.2011 in the evening. Further, he stated that his daughter was medically examined by the doctor on 26.07.2011 at IGMC, Shimla. The said statement is totally contrary to the entire evidence as led by the prosecution. This creates serious doubt in the story as projected by the prosecution.

¶152

PW-1 states that on 17.07.2011, the prosecutrix

¶153

at about 1:30 p.m. went from her house to Kasumpti market and did not turn back till evening. PW-2 prosecutrix in her statement says that she left her house on 17.07.2011 at 8:00 a.m. for school. In case the said statements are read in conjunction with the statement of PW-12 Nisha Bhaluni then it will be clear from her statement wherein she has stated that as per the attendance register maintained in the school, the prosecutrix was a student of 10+2 (medical) and she was absent from the school since 16.07.2011 onwards and her school leaving certificate was issued on

¶154

30 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶155

19.08.2011. The story as put forth by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and shatters the case of the prosecution.

¶156

PW-2 has tried to portray that on 17.07.2011, she had gone to School and she attended her school up to 4:00 p.m. and she also used to attend the tuition classes nearby Hotel Himland and her tuition class started at about 5:oo p.m. Accused called her at 5:00 p.m. and came to receive her near Himland hotel. But, PW-12, Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Portmore, stated something else and as per her statement the prosecutrix was absent from school since 16.07.2011 onwards. It belies the story of the prosecution and creates serious doubt over its veracity and authenticity .

¶157

It has come in the statement of prosecutrix (PW2) that Ishita and Poonam were her close friends and she had disclosed them about the accused. Neither Ishita nor Poonam had been examined by the prosecution in order to corroborate its case. Initially, prosecutrix stated that on 17.07.2011, no conversation took place between her and accused on mobile phone. Then she stated that she left her

¶158

31 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶159

house on 17.07.2011 at 8:00 a.m. for school. She attended

¶160

her school up to 4:00 p.m on that day. She stated she had also attended the tuition classes nearby Hotel Himland and her tuition class started at about 5:00 p.m. The prosecutrix had waited for her friend at Himland for tuition classes. Ishita her friend accompanied prosecutrix. At that time accused met her at 5:00 p.m. at Cart Road, Himland Hotel and before that they had no telephonic conversation nor she met him before 5:00 p.m. The story as put forth is highly improbable, because in the examination-in-chief, she has stated that on 17.07.2011, accused at about 5:00 p.m. called her on telephone and came to receive her near Himland . Statement of prosecutrix itself is at variance and it does not inspire confidence in order to connect the present respondent for the commission of offence.

¶161

It has come in the evidence of the prosecutrix that Ishita her friend accompanied her at 5.00 p.m. As per the prosecutrix, the vehicle in which the accused took her to Parwanoo was black in colour but the prosecutrix could not tell the number and type of the vehicle. She has admitted that they remained roaming on that road up to 7:00 p.m. She

¶162

32 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶163

has admitted that cart road starts from old Bus Stand Shimla via Chhota Shimla-Sanjauli-Lakkar Bazar Bus Stand and ends at old Bus Stand Shimla. She has admitted that the hotel was three storied and there were many shops nearby the hotel. She has admitted that there were people and waiters in the hotel. On the next morning she had noticed that there were many shops nearby the hotel. She admitted that there was landline phone in the hotel but same was not in working condition. She admitted that she had not asked the waiter and staff of the hotel whether they have any cell phone or not.

¶164

From the sequence of the events, it transpires that it is highly improbable that the accused enticed and forcefully took the prosecutrix from the lawful custody against her wishes. The cart road at Shimla is a busy area and lot of vehicles ply on this road. Generally, many people also pass through this area and it is highly improbable that she could not take the help of any one either at the cart road or of the staff and waiter of the hotel at Parwaoo. The story as projected does not seem to be probable and trustworthy as a result of which, no credence can be given

¶165

33 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶166

to the same. The story is full of contradictions and inconsistencies and it is highly improbable which cannot be accepted in the present intending facts and circumstances of the case.

¶167

From the perusal of record, it reveals that the prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. It is highly improbable that a girl who has levelled serious allegations against a person and she has come forward to prosecute him will refuse to get her medically examined in order to prove the case of the prosecution. Her refusal to get herself medially examined draws an adverse inference against the prosecution.

¶168

The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision in Special Leave Petition No.6066 of 2024 ,titled as Paritala Sudhakar vs. State of Telangana has held that in case there are material contradictions and inconsistencies, in that event, the benefif of doubt has to be given to the accused . The relevant para reads as under:

¶169

“17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the Judgment(s)/Orders(s) of the Courts below and the material on record, it transpires that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. In this connection, it would not be out of place to take note of the observations in Yogesh

¶170

34 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶171

Singh v Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 to the following effect:

¶172

‘29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the 10 prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi v. State of M.P. [Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649: 2000 SCC (Cri) 26], Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525: 2000 SCC (Cri) 222] , Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh [Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 186: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1435], Vijay v. State of M.P. [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639], Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police [Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 42], Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B. [Shyamal Ghosh v. State of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 685] and Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab [Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab, (2013) 12 SCC 796: (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 564].)’

¶173

35 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶174

From the perusal of the statement of PW-1 , it reveals that he has deposed that prosecutrix was found in Krishna Nagar on 19.07.2011 and in that regard memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared which was witnessed by Jagmohan(PW-7) and Bhupender Sharma (PW-8). PW-7 is one of the signatories of the document Ext.PW1/C has nowhere deposed that custody of the prosecutrix was given to PW1. Similarly, according to him, prosecutrix and accused were found in the house of uncle of accused. In the document Ext.PW1/C, there is a different story according to which accused and prosecutrix were found roaming. This document also falsifies the deposition of PW-8, who deposed that custody of the prosecutrix was given to her father Ranger Lal and PW-8 also deposed that document Ext.PW1/C was prepared in the Police Station.

¶175

The prosecution has even failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the occurrence. The prosecution in order to corroborate its case placed on record the photocopy of matriculation certificate Ext.P-1, birth certificate Ext.PW6/A. The perusal of Ext.P-1 shows that it is a photocopy of the matriculation certificate. The same has

¶176

36 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶177

not been proved in accordance with the provisions of law, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this document. No record from the school has been examined to prove the authenticity and the contents of this document. To the similar extent is Ext.PW6/A, another document which was issued by PW-6. He has categorically admitted that the entries in the record brought by him were made on the basis of previous record in which entries admittedly were not made by him. No witness has been examined to prove the fact who had made the entry in the birth register. The police got the copy of ossification test in order to determine the age of the prosecutrix and as per ossification test, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be between 15 to 19 years. If the upper age as given by PW-10 is taken to be the age of the prosecutrix then she does not fall within the definition of the minor. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and has also failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time of occurrence.

¶178

PW2 has stated that she received telephone call from the accused. She was present at Himland Hotel and

¶179

37 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶180

the vehicle in which they went to Parwanoo was black in colour, however, she does not remember the number and type of vehicle. Further accused was driving the vehicle. It is stated by her that she does not remember that after sitting in the vehicle where they had gone. In further crossexamination she has stated that police had recorded her statement portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of mark ‘R’ which was read over to the witness. She stated that she did not give such statement to the police. Confronted with the portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of mark ‘R’ wherein it is also recorded. She stated that she cannot tell the fact regarding going to Parwanoo in a bus which has been recorded by the police voluntarily. It has also not been proved by the prosecution whether the prosecutrix and the accused went to Parwanoo by bus or by private vehicle. It also casts suspicion in the prosecution story. The entire case of prosecution is full of contradictions and the learned Court below after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record has rightly acquitted the respondent since the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the guilt of the accused. We see no

¶181

38 2025:HHC:42494 )

¶182

infirmity in the judgment as passed by learned Special Judge on 31.03.2015.

¶183