Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

When Two Views Arise, Innocence Prevails: Himachal Pradesh High Court

13 October 2024 12:32 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of Ashok Kumar and others in a case involving the alleged misappropriation of government-supplied cement. The court ruled that when two plausible views arise from the evidence, the one favoring the innocence of the accused must prevail. The prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that the cement bags were misappropriated, thus the acquittal was sustained.

The case revolved around allegations that Ashok Kumar, a contractor assigned to construct a retaining wall, had misappropriated 180 bags of government-supplied cement and sold them to his co-accused. The trial court had convicted Ashok Kumar and others under sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused, leading the State to file an appeal.

The key legal questions revolved around the prosecution's inability to establish the misappropriation of cement bags beyond reasonable doubt. Central to the case was the distinction between charges of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC). Additionally, the case examined whether the accused could be held liable for offenses under both sections, which require different mental states and are mutually exclusive.

The court highlighted that in criminal cases, when two views are possible, the court must lean towards the view favoring the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidance in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) and other precedents were cited, emphasizing that acquittals should not be overturned unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or flawed in law.

The court found that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove that the cement was not used for construction work, as argued by the defense. The court pointed out several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the failure to establish the identity of the cement bags or the specific dates of misappropriation.

The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, affirming the acquittal of Ashok Kumar and others. The court reinforced the principle that in criminal jurisprudence, any reasonable doubt should benefit the accused.

Date of Decision: October 3, 2024

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ramesh Chand & Anr. and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Latest Legal News