The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Rakesh Kumar and others, who were accused of offences including rioting and causing grievous hurt. The Court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, observed that when two reasonable views are possible from the evidence, the appellate court should refuse to interfere with a judgment of acquittal.
Background
The case originated from an incident on February 14, 2009, at approximately 8:30 PM. The informant, Rajnish Kumar (PW1), and his brother Sajneesh Kumar (PW2) were closing their shop when Rakesh Kumar and Pankaj Kumar allegedly arrived and began abusing them. It was alleged that Rakesh Kumar struck the informant on the head with a brick, while other family members—Prakash Chand, Shareshtha Devi, and Mona Devi—joined in the assault.
A medical examination revealed that Rajnish Kumar had sustained multiple injuries, including a missing tooth, which was classified as a grievous injury. The police subsequently registered an FIR on February 17, 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 325, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamshala, acquitted the respondents on April 30, 2014, leading to the present appeal by the State.
Arguments of the Parties
The Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, argued that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. He contended that the matter was reported to the police on the day of the incident and an entry was made in the daily diary. He emphasized that the testimonies of the injured victims and independent eyewitnesses were corroborated by medical evidence.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondents argued that the relationship between the parties was strained due to a land dispute. He pointed out the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and argued that the Trial Court had taken a reasonable view of the evidence which did not warrant interference.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rulings in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) and State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2025). The Court noted:
“the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible…”
Medical Discrepancies and Influence of Alcohol: The Court highlighted significant discrepancies in the medical evidence. Dr. Randeep Kumar (PW6) admitted during cross-examination that the informant’s teeth were generally mobile and the missing tooth could have been “uprooted in a natural way.” Furthermore, medical reports and the informant’s own admission confirmed that the victims had consumed alcohol (specifically beer) on the night of the incident. Doctors testified that the injuries could have been caused by a fall under the influence of alcohol.
Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the informant’s testimony to be exaggerated, noting that his claim of being bitten by the accused was not mentioned in the FIR or noticed by the Medical Officer. Justice Kainthla remarked:
“This improvement shows the informant’s desperation to secure the conviction at any cost.”
Regarding the independent witnesses, Baldev Kumar (PW3) and Naresh Kumar (PW7), the Court classified them as “chance witnesses.” The Court noted that Baldev Kumar, despite claiming to be a regular customer, failed to name all the alleged assailants and his presence on the spot was considered doubtful. Similarly, Naresh Kumar’s testimony was found inconsistent with the prosecution’s version regarding the location of injuries and the number of people present.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court’s view was reasonable and the prosecution witnesses were not entirely credible. The Court held that even if another view were possible, it would not interfere with the acquittal.
The appeal was dismissed. Under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (Section 481 of BNSS, 2023), the respondents were directed to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000 each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of H.P. vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.
- Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 290 of 2014
- Judge: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
- Date of Decision: March 20, 2026
