State of Hp Vs Neelam

( 2025:HHC:34895 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 379 of 2015 Reserved on: 09.10.2025 Decided on: 15.10.2025 _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Neelam and another …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ______________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Ankush Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

¶3

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶4

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the appellant-State, laying challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 05.02.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.(IV), Una, District Una, H.P., in Criminal Case No.41-I-2007/33-II-2007, whereby the respondents-accused persons (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) were acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under

¶5

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

¶6

2 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶7

Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶8

Brief facts of the case, as per prosecution story, are that on 08.11.2006 complainant Salochna Devi lodged a complaint before the police, stating therein that on 07.11.2006 at about 5:30 p.m., while she was passing through the field of Neelam (respondent No.1/accused herein) to get fodder for the cattle, accused Neelam asked her why she was passing through her field and thereafter accused Neelam and Suman (respondent No.2/accused herein) started abusing the complainant and also gave beatings to her. On having heard the cries of the complainant, her son Chandan and one Sanjeev Kumar came to the spot and then accused persons had left the spot. Thereafter, the police took the complainant to PHC Bhadsali for treatment and obtained her MLC. The complainant was also referred for dental opinion and the doctor at Regional Hospital, Una had opined that one tooth of the complainant got uprooted. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint/statement, FIR in question was registered against the accused persons.

¶9

The police, during the course of investigation, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and also took into possession the broken tooth of the complainant. After completion of the investigation, the police prepared the charge-sheet and presented the

¶10

3 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶11

same in the learned Trial Court.

¶12

The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 19.07.2008, framed charges against the accused persons under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

¶13

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not examine any witness in their defence.

¶14

The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2015, acquitted both the accused persons for commission of the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

¶15

The learned Additional Advocate General contended

¶16

that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a very slip-shod and perfunctory manner. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has discarded the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons in the absence of any proof of enmity. With these submissions, he has prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgment of

¶17

4 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶18

the trial Court and acceptance of the appeal.

¶19

Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused contended that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Trial Court after proper appreciation of both facts and law. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the respondents and also carefully examined the entire records.

¶21

It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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

¶22

5 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶23

trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views 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, merely, because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court.

¶24

In the instant case, the allegations against the accused persons are that on 07.11.2006 at around 5:30 PM, at village Salaoh, Police Station Haroli, District Una, HP they in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant.

¶25

I have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence of the prosecution on record and have found that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and various other infirmities, which go to the root of the case, as rightly noticed by the learned Trial Court and the same render the prosecution case highly suspicious.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that on 08.11.2006, the complainant visited Police Post Pandoga and informed about the incident, which took place on 07.11.2006, upon which, rapat Ext.PW4/A was entered and sent to Police Station, Haroli for registration of the FIR. PW-4 Constable Rajesh Kumar, in his statement, deposed that he entered the rapat literally as uttered by the complainant. Perusal of rapat

¶27

6 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶28

Ext.PW4/A, FIR Ext.PW7/A as well as the story contained in the chargesheet, it is clear that the alleged incident had taken place on 07.11.2006 during evening time. However, the matter was reported to the police on the next day i.e. 08.11.2006, but the witnesses examined in this regard have contradicted the said fact. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, deposed that on 07.11.2006 at about 5:30 P.M., she was going to get fodder for her cattle and while she was passing through the field of accused Neelam, both the accused persons uttered abusive words to her. She further stated that on the next day, both the accused persons as well as the son and daughter of accused Neelam gave beatings to her and also uprooted her tooth. From the statement of PW-1, it is clear that the alleged offence was committed on 08.11.2006 and not on 07.11.2006 as is mentioned in the Rapat Ext.PW4/A as well as FIR Ext.PW7/A. Similarly, PW-2 Agya Ram stated that on 08.11.2006 at about 5.30 P.M., when he was going to take manure from Ghaluwal depot, which was near to the house of the complainant, he heard some noise and noticed that the accused persons had been giving beatings to the complainant, whereas, PW-5 Chandan Jaswal, who was the son of the complainant, stated that on 07.11.2006 at around 5.30 P.M., while he was coming back from his tuition class, he noticed that the accused persons were giving beatings to his mother. From the statement of PW-5,

¶29

7 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶30

it has become full of suspicion as to whether the offence was committed on 07.11.2006 or on 08.11.2006. Perusal of the statements of aforesaid witnesses clearly suggest that even the date of alleged incident is not clear, which creates a serious about about the truthfulness of prosecution story.

¶31

Furthermore, PW-1 Salochna Devi, in her cross-examination, stated that she was given beatings for about 10-15 minutes till she had become unconscious and 100-200 injuries were sustained by her due to the said beatings. She also stated that the blood had oozed out from her mouth and the contusions were also present on her body. However, perusal of MLC Ext.PW-3/A reveals that there were no injury marks on the body of the complainant, except that her one tooth was uprooted and there is no mention about the contusions or other injury marks on her body. PW-3 Dr. N.K.Angra, who had medically examined the complainant, had also not ruled out the possibility that the injuries might have been possible due to fall. Similarly, PW-6 Dr.Vipan Chaudhary, who had given dental opinion Ext.PW-6/A, had also not found any swelling on the face of the complainant. As regards the uprooting of the tooth, same could have been possible for some other reason. Had there been any severe beatings given to the complainant, several injuries must have been present on her body. Therefore, perusal of the entire evidence on

¶32

8 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶33

record, it has not been proved that any beatings were given by the accused persons to the complainant and all the aforesaid discripencies cast grave doubt over the veracity of the prosecution case.

¶34

Perusal of the prosecution evidence on record also reveals that a dispute was already existing between the complainant and the accused persons. PW-1 Salochna Devi (complainant), in her crossexamination, admitted that prior to this case, two cases were instituted by the accused persons, which were pending against her. PW-2 Agya Ram also admitted, in his cross-examination, that there was a land dispute between the complainant and the accused persons. Hence, the possibility that the instant case might have been filed by the complainant against the accused persons due to the prior enmity, cannot be ruled out.

¶35

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of acquittal, dated 05.02.2015, passed by the learned Trial Court. The view taken by it was the only possible view, as such, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.

¶36

In view of the provisions of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, the respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (each) with one surety (each) in the like

¶37

9 ( 2025:HHC:34895 )

¶38

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within a period of four weeks with the stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondents on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶39

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

¶40

( Sushil Kukreja )

¶41

Judge

¶42

October 15, 2025

¶43

(V.Himalvi)

State of Hp v. Neelam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Neelam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Singh Vs Surender Singh and Ors.

The Chief Executive Officer Hspl Vs Shepu and Others

State of Hp Vs Jeewan Kumar

Managing Director Vs Dharminder Singh

Sh. Amit Singla and others Vs Smt Nirmala and others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Manju