The High Court reiterates that interference with acquittal is permissible only if the judgment is perverse or based on misreading or omission of material evidence, and when no other view except guilt is possible. The judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent and serves as reaffirmed persuasive authority for criminal appellate practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
|
| Date of Registration | 19-03-2014 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA) |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for future appeals against acquittal; reaffirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Chandrappa, Rajesh Prasad, State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh, Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Appellate review of acquittal under Section 378 CrPC |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s principles on when an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal. Interference is permitted only if the trial court’s acquittal is perverse, suffers from omission or misreading of crucial evidence, and when the only possible conclusion is guilt. If two reasonable views arise from the evidence, the appellate court must not overturn acquittal. Any minor contradictions or witness hostility, without deeper evidentiary failing, do not enable appellate reversal. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened after acquittal. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on the established legal position as enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding appellate interference in acquittals, particularly the double presumption of innocence, the permissible scope of appellate review, and the standard that “if two reasonable conclusions are possible,” acquittal must stand. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant alleged that the accused uttered defamatory statements in public, damaging her reputation, in a quarrel over discharge of water or sweeping the courtyard. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the complainant’s witnesses were all related and provided contradictory reasons for the abuse. No independent or third-party witnesses were examined despite being named, and contradictions existed in the evidence submitted. On appeal, the High Court found no perversity in the trial court’s view, and that a reasonable possible view on evidence led to acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh regarding Section 378 CrPC appeals |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and benches hearing appeals against acquittal in criminal matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that mere minor contradictions or relationship among witnesses do not, by themselves, justify appellate interference with acquittal if the trial court’s view is reasonable.
- Restates the “double presumption of innocence” standard — after acquittal, the presumption is even stronger.
- Non-examination of independent witnesses when named in the complaint enables drawing adverse inference.
- If the trial court’s view is a possible view on evidence, acquittal must not be overturned even if another interpretation is plausible.
- Cites latest Supreme Court authorities (2024–25) recapitulating Section 378 CrPC appellate scope.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court identifies the appeal as challenging acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.
- Cites Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, quoting at length from Supreme Court summaries of principles governing appellate scope in acquittal appeals.
- Emphasises that the appellate court must bear in mind the “double presumption of innocence” — both from fundamental criminal jurisprudence and as reinforced by acquittal.
- The appellate court is empowered to reappreciate and revisit all evidence; however, it cannot interfere unless the acquittal is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission, or only guilt can be concluded from the evidence.
- Where two views of evidence are reasonably possible, the acquittal cannot be disturbed.
- On facts, finds that all witnesses for the complainant are related/inimical and no neutral witnesses were examined, though available.
- Contradictory testimonies and lack of proof as to the fact in issue — the reason for the alleged abuse — cast doubt.
- Finds trial court’s view of the matter reasonable in the context of inconsistent evidence and adverse inference due to non-examination of independent persons.
- Declines to interfere since trial court’s acquittal is a possible view and not perverse.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Complainant)
- The trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence.
- Minor contradictions were exaggerated; these were natural over time and not fatal.
- Enmity among parties not enough to justify discarding complainant’s case.
- The incident was proved through the testimonies of the complainant and her witnesses.
Respondent (Accused)
- The complainant failed to examine any independent witnesses, despite their availability and being named.
- Only examined family members, whose statements contradicted each other.
- The trial court’s acquittal was a reasonable, justified view based on evidence.
- Urged the High Court not to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
Factual Background
The complaint arose from a neighborhood dispute, where the accused allegedly made defamatory remarks against the complainant, claiming she was of bad character, in public. The incident took place near the complainant’s house-cum-shop in the presence of villagers and school staff. The trial court noticed that the only witnesses examined for the prosecution were relatives, and noted inconsistencies about the reason behind the quarrel (whether cleaning the kuhal or sweeping the courtyard). Despite naming neutral witnesses, none were produced. The trial court acquitted the accused. On appeal, the High Court upheld the acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 500 IPC (Defamation) — basis for the criminal complaint.
- Section 378 CrPC — governs appeals against acquittal; interpretation follows Supreme Court precedent outlining when appellate courts may interfere.
- Section 313 CrPC — provides for the accused’s examination. The accused denied all allegations and presented no defence evidence.
- Section 437-A CrPC — personal bond mandated for the respondent/accused in accordance with procedural requirements for appeal to Supreme Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions documented in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Respondent/accused was directed to furnish a personal bond under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481, BNSS 2023) to secure appearance in case of further appeal, following updated procedural safeguards.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms established Supreme Court authority on appellate interference with acquittal and does not break or conflict with precedent.