State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Om Parkash @ Sonu

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. It was asserted that the accused was an under-trial prisoner. He was to be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, on 11.07.2013. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) and Constable Deepak Kumar brought him from Police Line, District Jail, Dharamshala, District Kangra, to the Court; however, the learned Judicial Magistrate was on leave. They brought the accused back to the jail in a bus. They were getting off the bus at 1:20 PM at the old Bus Stand, Palampur, when the accused ran away, taking advantage of the crowd. The informant Dile Ram (PW-1) and Constable Deepak ran after the accused but could not apprehend him. They searched for the accused, but could not find him. HHC Dlie Ram (PW-1) filed an application (Ext.PW-1/A) before the police, and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-6/A) was registered in the Police Station. HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/C). He seized the duty abstract (Ext.PW-5/A), recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version, arrested the accused on 12.07.2013 and produced him before the Court. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned trial Court.

Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under section 224 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) had the custody of the accused. HHC Narinder Singh (PW-2) and Constable Madan Lal (PW-4) are the eyewitnesses. HC Dilbhag Singh (PW-3) proved the entry in the daily diary. Constable Malkiat Singh (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) investigated the matter. HHC Kushal Kumar (PW-7) proved the entry in the daily diary. Naveen Kumar (PW-8) proved the jail warrants.

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was brought to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., on 11.07.2013 in the custody of HHC Dile Ram and Constable Deepak. He denied the rest of the prosecution's case. He claimed that he was falsely implicated and that he was innocent. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

Learned trial Court held that the statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. An adverse inference has to be drawn for the non-examination of Constable Deepak. The prosecution's evidence did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under section 224 of the IPC.

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the state has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were discarded without assigning any cogent reason. The accused admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he was brought to the Court of a learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1), HHG Narinder (PW-2) and Madan Lal (PW-4) proved that the accused had escaped from the police custody. The accused had failed to assign any motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to depose falsely against him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant/State and Mr Janesh Gupta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.

Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court rejected the prosecution evidence without assigning any cogent reason. The accused had not attributed any motive to the prosecution witnesses to depose falsely against him. The prosecution witnesses consistently stated that the accused had run away, taking advantage of the crowd. Learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.

Mr Janesh Gupta, learned Legal Aid Counsel, for the respondent, submitted that the informant, Dile Ram, admitted in his cross-examination that the accused did not have the money with him. The accused was sent to bring the cigarettes, and he could not find the police officials on his return. He waited for the police officials for a pretty long time. Nobody came to take him to the Police Station in Dharamshala. The accused had no money with him and could not have gone anywhere. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440:

"12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed:

" 12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114."

The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) stated that they reached the Old Bus Stand, Palampur, at 1:20 p.m. There was a huge rush, and the accused ran away from the spot. They searched for the accused but could not find him. HHG Narinder Singh (PW-2) stated that HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) and Constable Deepak got down from the bus and started running toward Baijnath after a person. He also ran after that person, but the person ran away. He did not know that person, but he was present in the Court. Madan Lal (PW-4) stated that people shouted that the thief was running away. Two police officials also ran after him. He could not identify that person, and the person ran away, taking advantage of the crowd.

The statements of these witnesses contradict each other. Madan Lal (PW-4) stated that there was a cry that the thief had run away, which fact was not stated by any other person. HHG Narinder Singh (PW-2) stated that HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) and Constable Deepak ran after one person. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) stated that the accused ran away, taking advantage of the crowd, and he searched for the accused but could not trace him. He has not stated that they had also run after the accused. These contradictions relate to the core of the prosecution's case, namely, the fact that the accused had escaped and would make the prosecution's case suspect.

HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) stated that the distance between the old Bus stand and the new Bus stand is one kilometer He also admitted that the bus coming from Baijnath goes directly to the new Bus Stand. He admitted that the buses are available only from the new Bus Stand. He has not provided any explanation as to why they went to the old Bus Stand, when the buses go directly to the new Bus Stand from Baijnath and the buses are available from the New Bus Stand. This makes the prosecution's case highly suspect that the accused had escaped from the old bus stand.

Constable Malkiat Singh (PW-5) stated that, as per the Duty Register, Constable Kartar was deputed on the old Bus Stand and Narinder Kumar was deputed near Goyal Depot. He volunteered to say that the duties are assigned at 6:30 p.m. on the preceding day, and a message to relieve Kartar was received on the next day. He admitted that no note was made in the register regarding the change of the duty

The cross-examination of this witness makes the prosecution suspect that HHG Narinder Singh (PW-2) was on duty at the old Bus Stand. HHG Narinder Singh (PW-2) was initially assigned to a duty near Goyal Depot, and no entry was made regarding the change of duty.

HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) stated in his cross-examination that the accused was arrested on 12.07.2013 at 12:30 at Maranda. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) stated in his cross-examination that the accused was apprehended the next day at Thakurdwara at 8:30. The memo of arrest shows that the name of the Arresting Officer and the police station were changed by applying fluid. This memo is not signed by any independent person but by HHC Kulbir Singh and HC Deshraj and violates the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416. Therefore, the evidence regarding the arrest of the accused is highly unsatisfactory.

Statements of HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) and HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) show that the accused was apprehended in the vicinity of Palampur. It is difficult to believe that a person escaping from police custody would remain near the place of escape because this would have increased his chances of arrest and frustrated the very purpose of the escape.

There is no other evidence to corroborate the statements of prosecution witnesses. Constable Deepak, who was also present on the spot, was not examined, and the learned trial Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference.

Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view that could have been taken based on the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible.

No other point was urged.

In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.

A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.