High Court upholds the principle that interference with acquittal is permissible only when the trial court judgment is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible. The judgment follows and reiterates Supreme Court precedent, clarifying the high threshold for appellate intervention in criminal acquittals. Applicable as binding authority for subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh and persuasive for other courts assessing appeals against acquittal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/4033/2013 of STATE OF HP Vs KHIALI RAM |
| CNR | HPHC010108092013 |
| Date of Registration | 26-07-2013 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Rakesh Kainthla) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent regarding appellate interference with acquittals |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appellate court, when dealing with an appeal against acquittal, can only interfere if the judgment is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence. The presumption of innocence is further reinforced by an acquittal. Minor contradictions in prosecution evidence, especially where relationships are strained, require cautious appreciation. If the trial court’s view is a reasonably possible one, interference is unwarranted, even if another view is possible. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court jurisprudence on appeals against acquittal, laying out that an appellate court has full power to reappreciate evidence but should only disturb acquittal if the view taken by the trial judge is not reasonably possible, especially in light of the double presumption of innocence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The informant (PW5) and her mother alleged wrongful confinement and minor assault by the accused (parents-in-law), leading to charges under Sections 323 and 342 read with Section 34 IPC. There was an ongoing strained relationship, pending litigation, and a restraining injunction in effect. The trial court acquitted based on material contradictions, lack of corroboration, non-examination of independent witnesses, and reasonable doubt. The State appealed this acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appellate interference with an acquittal is justified only if the judgment is perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible on the evidence.
- Highlights the need for caution where prosecution witnesses are interested/related and there is ongoing litigation between parties.
- Underscores that non-examination of independent witnesses can justifiably lead to adverse inference.
- Notes that minor contradictions in witness statements, especially in strained relationships, are insufficient for overturning acquittals.
- Consolidates the application of Supreme Court precedent for criminal appeals against acquittal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reiterated Supreme Court principles (Surendra Singh, Babu Sahebagouda, Rajesh Prasad, Chandrappa, H.D. Sundara) governing appeals against acquittal: appellate courts have full power to reappreciate evidence, but acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence, and interference demands a very high threshold.
- The trial court’s view was examined, including contradictions and improvements by prosecution witnesses, lack of corroboration by medical evidence, and failure to examine available independent witnesses, particularly in the context of ongoing disputes and court orders restricting the informant’s entry into the accused’s residence.
- The High Court found that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonable view on the evidence—thus no interference was warranted, even if an alternative view was possible.
- Minor contradictions, especially in the context of hostility and pre-existing disputes, were not deemed sufficient for reversal of acquittal.
- The principles laid down mandate that unless the acquittal is perverse or wholly unsustainable, appellate courts must defer to the trial court’s findings.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (State):
- Prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Trial court erred in discarding the statements of interested witnesses.
- Minor contradictions should not vitiate the prosecution case.
- Medical evidence corroborated the incident.
- Requested setting aside of acquittal.
Respondent (Accused):
- Supported trial court’s judgment.
- No interference required.
Factual Background
The case arose from a familial dispute. The informant Kavita (PW5) and her mother alleged wrongful confinement and minor physical assault by her parents-in-law when they tried to enter the house, despite an injunction order restraining entry. The incident was reported to the police, FIR was registered, and a medical examination found only simple injuries. At trial, prosecution witnesses were inconsistent, and no independent witnesses were examined. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal by the State.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 323, 342, and 34 IPC were central to the alleged offences.
- Section 378 CrPC (appeals against acquittal) was invoked for the appeal.
- Section 437-A CrPC (personal bond on acquittal) was applied for ensuring presence post-judgment.
- The court referenced and applied precedent governing interpretation of appellate powers in criminal procedure, emphasizing the strong presumption of innocence post-acquittal and strict tests for appellate interference.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment directed compliance with Section 437-A CrPC (personal bond by acquitted persons), as now mandated after disposal of criminal appeals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and elaborates on existing Supreme Court precedent regarding appellate interference with criminal acquittals.