-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
“If the complainant’s land is adjacent to a 5-foot wide public footpath, why would he trespass into the accused’s field? - In a detailed ruling High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the acquittal of Nitya Devi Sharma and another in a case involving charges under Sections 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, dismissing the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal and concluding that the trial court’s view was not only reasonable, but strongly supported by contradictions in prosecution evidence and improbabilities in the case theory itself.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that the prosecution’s entire case was rendered implausible by its own site plan and the contradictory statements of its key witnesses, and reiterated that unless the trial court’s view is “patently perverse or based on a complete misreading of material evidence,” appellate courts must not interfere with an acquittal.
The case stemmed from a 2008 land access dispute where the complainant alleged he was pushed and assaulted by the accused while trying to create a tractor passage through their field, but the High Court found the alleged motive unbelievable, the injury insufficiently connected to the accused, and the witnesses contradictory and unreliable.
“If the Path Exists, The Assault Doesn’t”—Court Finds Site Plan Fatal to Prosecution’s Version of Events
The Court observed that the site plan (Ext.PW7/C) filed by the prosecution's own investigating officer showed that the complainant's land was directly accessible via a five-foot-wide public footpath, eliminating any need to trespass through the accused’s property.
"The site plan falsifies the prosecution’s case. There was no need to create any passage through the accused’s land. The presence of a Kuhal (irrigation canal) further makes such an act implausible." [Para 15]
The Court further remarked:
"It is difficult to believe that a person would first cross an irrigation canal to reach the accused’s land, then create a passage, when a proper public path already led directly to his field."
This flaw in the very genesis of the prosecution’s story was found to be critical. As the judge noted, "when the root of the story collapses, the branches cannot stand either."
“Unreliable and Contradictory Testimonies Cannot Sustain a Conviction”—High Court Calls Out Improvements and Omissions
The High Court scrutinised the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses and found them riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and suspicious omissions.
Informant Satish Kumar (PW1) initially claimed his father uprooted a bamboo pole, which provoked the assault. But in cross-examination, he said his father did not uproot the pole, only intended to.
The Court commented:"This contradiction goes to the heart of the prosecution story. If the incident was triggered by uprooting a bamboo pole, and that act did not occur, then what was the actual cause? The prosecution failed to answer this." [Para 18]
As for Suresh Singh (PW2), the alleged eye-witness, the Court noted that:
"His name does not appear in the FIR, nor did any other witness mention his presence. His testimony was rightly rejected by the trial court." [Para 19]
The injured witness, Jagjivan Ram (PW6), also failed to inspire confidence. He admitted to pending litigation with the accused, made evident improvements in court, and omitted key allegations in his police statement.
"When the relationship is strained, and the testimony is inconsistent, caution must be exercised. The trial court’s decision to doubt the witness was legally sound." [Para 22]
The Court further observed:
"If the complainant was merely removing his own bamboo fencing, as he testified, why would the accused have any reason to object or assault him?" [Para 23]
“Injury Alone Doesn’t Prove Guilt—It Must Be Linked by Credible Evidence”: High Court Rejects Argument Based Solely on Medical Report
The prosecution heavily relied on the MLC issued by Dr. Umesh Kashyap (PW8) and the X-ray report confirming a fracture, but the Court cautioned against using medical evidence as a substitute for credible factual proof.
"It is not enough to show that an injury occurred. The injury must be linked to the accused through trustworthy testimony. That connection is missing here." [Summary]
“Presumption of Innocence Becomes Stronger After Acquittal—Appellate Interference Demands Compelling Grounds”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s authoritative judgment in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), the High Court reiterated:
"There is a double presumption of innocence in case of acquittal. The appellate court must not interfere unless the acquittal is perverse or evidence has been completely misread." [Para 13]
Justice Rakesh Kainthla wrote: "The trial court has taken a reasonable view. Even if another view is possible, that is no ground to disturb the acquittal." [Para 24]
Finding no “patent perversity” or “misreading of evidence”, the Court held that the State’s appeal was entirely without merit.
“No Grounds to Reverse Acquittal—Appeal Dismissed with Direction to Execute Bonds under Section 437-A CrPC”
The appeal was dismissed in full, and in compliance with procedural law under Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 BNSS, 2023), the respondents were directed to furnish personal bonds of ₹25,000 each, to ensure their appearance if any Special Leave Petition is filed before the Supreme Court.
The Court ordered: "A copy of this judgment, along with the Trial Court records, be sent back forthwith." [Para 27]
The High Court's judgment in State of H.P. v. Nitya Devi Sharma & Another underscores the fundamental criminal law principle that doubt must always favour the accused, and that presumptions of guilt cannot override the requirement of cogent, consistent, and credible evidence.
"If the prosecution fails to explain the basic necessity or plausibility of the incident, and its witnesses contradict each other on key facts, then acquittal is not just justified—it is inevitable."
Date of Decision: 6 November 2025
