The judgment reiterates that while appellate courts have the full power to re-appreciate evidence in appeals against acquittal, there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Interference is warranted only if the trial court’s view is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or manifestly illegal. This decision upholds established Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority within its jurisdiction, particularly relevant for criminal appeals challenging acquittal orders.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/379/2015 of STATE OF HP Vs NEELAM |
| CNR | HPHC010118952015 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2015 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Procedure & Evidence—Appellate Interference with Acquittal) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appellate court possesses the full authority to review, re-appreciate, and reconsider evidence underlying an acquittal. However, there is a double presumption of innocence: initially, every accused is presumed innocent; upon acquittal by the trial court, this presumption is further reinforced. Unless the trial court’s view is unreasonable, perverse, or manifestly illegal, or based on no evidence, an appellate court must not overturn an acquittal even if an alternate interpretation of the evidence exists. If two reasonable views are possible, the trial court’s view ought to prevail. In the present case, contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution evidence, including discrepancies as to the date of the alleged incident and medical evidence, justified the trial court’s view, and thus no interference was warranted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Several Supreme Court decisions on powers of appellate courts in interfering with acquittal orders (specific citations not provided in the judgment extract) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The doctrine of double presumption of innocence, settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on limitations of appellate court powers over acquittal, principle that two reasonable views must favour acquittal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appeal arose from an acquittal in a case where the complainant alleged she was assaulted by the accused, resulting in a tooth being uprooted. Contradictions existed regarding the date of incident, injury details, and there was evidence of existing enmity between the parties over prior disputes. Medical evidence did not corroborate the complaint’s claim of multiple injuries, and alternative reasons for the injury (such as a fall) were not ruled out by medical experts. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, where similar questions regarding appellate interference with acquittals arise |
| Follows | Principles established in multiple Supreme Court decisions regarding appellate powers on acquittals (specific cases referenced in principle, not by name) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The ruling underscores the heightened threshold (double presumption of innocence) for appellate interference in cases of acquittal.
- Contradictions in the prosecution case, delay in lodging the FIR, and lack of medical corroboration were found sufficient to sustain the acquittal.
- The judgment reiterates that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail.
- Lawyers arguing against appellate interference with acquittal can rely on this case as reaffirmed, binding precedent within Himachal Pradesh.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by reiterating that appellate courts have full authority to review and re-appreciate evidence in appeals against acquittal.
- However, this power is circumscribed by the principle of “double presumption of innocence” for an acquitted accused—first, as a fundamental tenet of criminal law, and second, further reinforced by the acquittal itself.
- The court endorsed the established Supreme Court position that interference with an order of acquittal is not warranted merely because a different view is possible; only if the trial court’s view is unreasonable, perverse, or manifestly contrary to evidence should interference occur.
- Upon careful analysis, the High Court found:
- Material contradictions in prosecution witness accounts, particularly regarding the date of the incident.
- Medical evidence did not support the allegations of grievous assault.
- Pre-existing enmity and pending disputes between the parties cast further doubt on the complainant’s version.
- Consequently, the trial court’s view was deemed plausible, and no basis for appellate interference was found.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (State):
- Asserted that the trial court had misappreciated the evidence in a cursory and perfunctory way.
- Argued that discarding prosecution witnesses’ testimonies was unjustified, especially in the absence of proven enmity.
- Sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the accused.
Respondents (Accused):
- Maintained that the trial court had rightly assessed the evidence and rendered a well-reasoned acquittal.
- Pointed out that the evidence, both factual and legal, did not justify interference.
- Argued for affirmation of the acquittal.
Factual Background
The proceedings arose when Salochna Devi alleged that on 07.11.2006, while passing through the field of one of the accused to collect fodder, she was abused and beaten, leading to a tooth being uprooted. There were prompt and subsequent medical examinations. Notable contradictions in witness statements included discrepancies regarding the date of incident, nature, and extent of injuries. Evidence of previous disputes and cases between the parties was present. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State filed the present appeal challenging that acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed Section 378 of the CrPC, which enables appeals against acquittals.
- Reaffirmed the interpretative principles concerning the extent of appellate review.
- The court also referenced the procedural requirement under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for furnishing bail bonds in the event of a possible Supreme Court appeal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms settled law and reasserts existing Supreme Court precedent on appellate interference with acquittal orders.