Appellate Court Should Not Disturb Acquittal If Trial Court View Is Plausible And Based On Evidentiary Discrepancies: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations... a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated 10 September 2026, upheld the acquittal of respondents accused of offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

A bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that an appellate court must refrain from interfering with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, impossible, or manifestly illegal. The Court emphasized that when two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail, reinforcing the "double presumption of innocence" afforded to an acquitted party.

The prosecution alleged that on 18 November 2008, the informant, Meena Kumari, was assaulted by the accused Rakesh Kumar and Lajja Devi while she was washing utensils at a water tank. The informant claimed she sustained injuries from a stick and a bite mark on her finger, and that her jewellery was stolen during the altercation. The trial court, after assessing the testimony of eight witnesses, acquitted the accused citing material contradictions in the prosecution's narrative and the fact that key witnesses had turned hostile.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or sustainable based on the evidence presented. The Court was further required to determine whether the appellate court could reappreciate evidence to override the trial court’s findings when the prosecution witnesses suffered from material contradictions and failed to support the core allegations.

Scope of Interference with Acquittal

The Court reiterated the settled principles governing criminal appeals against acquittal, noting that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal. The bench observed that the trial judge holds a unique advantage in observing the demeanour of witnesses, which the appellate court lacks. Interference is only permissible if the acquittal is found to be "totally perverse or wholly unsustainable."

Court Clarifies Appellate Restraint

The Court held that an order of acquittal should not be disturbed simply because an alternative view is possible. If the trial court has taken a "reasonable view" based on the evidence, the appellate court must defer to that finding to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

"If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted."

Material Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence

The Court noted significant discrepancies between the FIR and the oral testimony provided in court. While the informant initially claimed injury to her right leg, she testified in court that the injury was to her left leg, a version corroborated by the medical officer. Furthermore, she effectively exonerated one of the named assailants, Mehar Singh, during her deposition, creating a major dent in the prosecution’s case.

Impact of Hostile Witnesses and Strained Relations

The Court observed that crucial witnesses, including Bishan Singh and Mehar Singh, had completely failed to support the prosecution’s version and denied their previous statements to the police. Additionally, the Court noted that the informant and her husband had admitted to a history of litigation and strained relations with the accused, necessitating that the prosecution's evidence be scrutinized with "due care and caution."

Inconsistencies in the Site Plan and Narrative

The Court identified a fundamental flaw in the prosecution’s timeline. The informant and her husband claimed to have been dispossessed from their home in June 2008, yet maintained they were at the accused's property at 7:00 a.m. to wash utensils. The failure to depict the informant's actual residence in the site plan rendered the prosecution’s narrative "highly suspect," leading the Court to conclude that the trial court’s acquittal was entirely justified.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming that the trial court reached a sound conclusion by identifying irreconcilable contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the supporting witnesses. In accordance with Section 437-A of the CrPC, the respondents were directed to furnish personal and surety bonds to remain available should the State choose to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2026