Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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