The High Court reaffirmed that interference in appeals against acquittal is permitted only if the judgment is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, and when no two reasonable views are possible—thus upholding well-settled Supreme Court precedent and offering binding authority for limited appellate review in criminal acquittals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/222/2014 of STATE OF HP Vs GURMAIL SINGH ALIAS GELU |
| CNR | HPHC010157512014 |
| Date of Registration | 13-06-2014 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent regarding limited appellate interference in acquittal appeals |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure Code; Evidence Law; Substantive Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | What is the scope and standard for appellate court interference in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC? When is a finding of acquittal susceptible to reversal on appeal? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the scope for appellate interference against a finding of acquittal is narrowly circumscribed. Reversal is warranted only if the acquittal is perverse, based on a misreading or omission of material evidence, and when no two reasonable views are possible. Where the trial court’s view is plausible, even if another may appear preferable, the appellate court must not interfere. A “double presumption” of innocence applies following acquittal. Suspicion, however strong, is not sufficient for conviction; the chain of evidence from the prosecution must be complete and exclude all hypotheses except guilt. The court found the prosecution evidence contradictory and unreliable, with no uninterrupted chain linking the accused to the offence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court recapitulated the established jurisprudence from Supreme Court authorities that acquittals are entitled to strong presumption of innocence and that appellate courts must not disturb such findings unless there are compelling reasons, such as perversity or impossibility of the trial court’s view. Testimony must be reliable and unimpeachable, and the chain of circumstances must exclude all hypotheses but guilt. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased Vijay Kumar allegedly assaulted by accused Gurmel Singh & Subhash Chand over unpaid loan of Rs. 1000 after a religious event (“jagrata”). Victim found injured, later died of head injuries. Prosecution relied mainly on alleged dying declaration and circumstantial evidence. Medical evidence showed high alcohol intoxication and head trauma possibly making coherent speech improbable; eyewitness and documentary evidence varied and were contradicted. Panchayat and independent witnesses turned hostile or could not corroborate the prosecution story. The prosecution could not establish an unbroken chain of circumstances to rule out all hypotheses except guilt. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (as stating well-settled law) |
| Follows | Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 SCC 433; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar; etc. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that an appellate court’s power in acquittal appeals is strictly limited—reversal is warranted only if the trial court’s acquittal is perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable alternative view exists.
- Contradictory or unreliable prosecution evidence, including inconsistent witness statements and absence of independent corroboration, will not justify overturning an acquittal.
- Where the evidence permits two plausible interpretations, the acquittal stands.
- The presumption of innocence after acquittal is doubly reinforced.
- Suspicion, however strong, does not equate to legal proof.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court extensively cited leading Supreme Court decisions delineating the narrow boundaries for overturning an acquittal, including Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, and others.
- The principle is that acquittal strengthens the accused’s presumption of innocence, and appellate courts must only interfere where the trial court view is “impossible,” “perverse,” or based on material misreading/omission of evidence.
- On review of the factual matrix, the court highlighted serious contradictions between witness testimonies (notably PW-1 and the complainant Ajit Singh), lack of corroboration from independent witnesses (Panchayat, Pradhan, etc.), and absence of examination of possible “jagrata” attendees.
- Medical evidence suggested that the alleged dying declaration was unreliable due to the deceased’s injuries and his high level of intoxication.
- Forensic and physical evidence (bloodstains, recovery memos, etc.) also suffered from inconsistencies and lack of chain-of-custody clarity.
- Given the evidentiary gaps and contradictions, the court found that no single, compelling view of guilt was possible; another plausible interpretation consistent with innocence existed, thus acquittal should not be disturbed.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (State):
- Challenged acquittal on ground that evidence (including dying declaration and medical/forensic) pointed toward guilt.
- Argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the prosecution evidence.
Respondent (Accused):
- Denied all incriminating evidence in examination under Section 313 CrPC.
- Argued investigation and prosecution evidence were internally inconsistent.
- Relied on lack of reliable, corroborative evidence and failure of prosecution to link evidence unbrokenly with accused.
Factual Background
The case arose from a fatal incident alleged to have occurred after a “jagrata” (religious vigil) in Village Paral, where Vijay Kumar was found injured, and later died from head injuries. The FIR was filed under Section 307 IPC, later altered to Section 302 IPC after death. The prosecution alleged the motive was repayment of a Rs. 1000 loan. The trial court acquitted both accused, finding gaps and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence. The State appealed the acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Discussed Section 378 CrPC: scope of High Court’s power in appeals against acquittal.
- Quoted and relied upon Supreme Court interpretations of Section 378 CrPC.
- Examined Section 302 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention) IPC (as per trial charge).
- Considered the evidentiary requirements for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; both judges signed the main judgment and concurred in the reasoning and result.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.