Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana 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.

Similar News