AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yogesh Jaswal, J.
The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No.7-K/7 of 2013, vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 506, and 302 read with Section 149 of the 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 criminal appeal are that the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur, H.P., presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against accused Rahul Negi (A-1), Dalip Singh (A-2), Harish Kumar (A-3), and Deepak Kumar (A-4) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 506, and 302 of the IPC, while co-accused Avinash (being a juvenile-in-conflict-with-law) was sent for trial before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rampur.
The accusations which form the basis of the prosecution in essence are that in the year 2012, deceased Surjeet Singh, son of Sh. Kushal Chand, resident of Village Kabbi, P.O. Ghandari, Tehsil and District Ramban (Jammu and Kashmir), was an employee of Sh. Ajgar Ali (Labour Contractor) working in L&T Company at Ponda, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur, H.P. He was working along with complainant Shyam Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Bahardeen, and Abdul Qayum, and they were living together in a rented accommodation (dera) provided to them by the contractor at Village Ponda.
On 02.07.2012, at about 07:45 p.m., complainant Shyam Singh and others sent deceased Surjeet Singh to Ponda market to buy vegetables and grocery etc. Deceased Surjeet Singh did not return for a considerable time, on which complainant Shyam Singh and Bahardeen went in search of him. When they reached near the Fair Price Shop at Ponda, they saw the accused persons assaulting Surjeet Singh. It was alleged that the accused persons had thrown deceased onto the ground and were subjecting him to beatings with a danda, a waist belt, and fists and kick blows. Accused Rahul Negi was allegedly armed with a danda and accused Deepak Kumar with a waist belt. Complainant Shyam Singh and Bahardeen intervened and tried to save Surjeet Singh, but they were also beaten up by the accused persons. Complainant Shyam Singh and Bahardeen managed to rescue Surjeet Singh and brought him to their dera. He had sustained multiple injuries, was unconscious, and his condition was serious. While leaving, the accused criminally intimidated and threatened them that they should not be seen at Ponda, otherwise they would be eliminated.
At about 10:30 p.m., Sanjay Kumar informed Police Post Nichar regarding the incident, which was entered as Rapat No.14 dated 02.07.2012 (Ex. PW-8/A). Pursuant to the information, ASI Hari Dass (PW-21), Incharge Police Post Nichar, immediately rushed to Village Ponda along with other police officials, namely HC Anil Kumar No. 100 (PW-12), HHC Ramesh Kumar No. 87, and Constable Anil Kumar No. 286. ASI Hari Dass, on reaching the spot, met complainant Shyam Singh and recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-16/A) at 11:10 p.m. The statement was sent to Police Station Bhabanagar through HC Anil Kumar, whereupon FIR No. 47/2012, dated 03.07.2012 (Ex. PW-22/A), was registered under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149, and 506 IPC.
The injured, Surjeet Singh, Bahardeen, and complainant Shyam Singh were shifted to CHC Bhabanagar for medical aid. Dr. Kavi Raj (PW-6) conducted their medical examinations vide MLCs Ex.PW-6/B, Ex.PW-6/C, and Ex.PW-6/D, respectively. Dr. Kavi Raj also medically examined accused Rahul Negi, Dalip Singh, Harish Kumar, and Deepak Kumar vide MLCs Ex.PW-6/F, Ex.PW-6/G, Ex.PW-6/H, and Ex.PW-6/J. Deceased Surjeet Singh, having sustained grievous injuries, was referred for further management to IGMC, Shimla, but he succumbed to his injuries en route at MGMSC, Khaneri, Rampur, which was communicated to Police Station Bhabanagar vide G.D. Entry No.10(A) dated 03.07.2012 (Ex.PW-7/B).
Thereafter, ASI Bhim Singh (PW-20) conducted inquest proceedings vide forms 25.35(1)(A) (Ex.PW-20/A) and 25.35(1)(B) (Ex.PW-20/B). A preliminary post-mortem examination was conducted at MGMSC, Khaneri, by a medical board comprising Dr. Vir Singh, Dr. Anup Negi, and Dr. Sudesh Kumari vide report Ex.PW-11/B. The dead body was then transmitted to IGMC, Shimla, where a detailed post-mortem examination was performed on 04.07.2012 by Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-17), Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, who issued post-mortem report Ex.PW-17/B (Ex.PW-17/D) and final opinion Ex.PW-17/F.
ASI Bhim Singh (PW-20) visited the spot on 03.07.2012, associated complainant Shyam Singh and Bahardeen, lifted blood spots from the spot with cotton swabs, and seized them vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A in the presence of independent witness Rajinder Singh (PW-1). On the same day, the investigation was taken over by SI Narender Singh (PW-22), SHO Police Station Bhabanagar, who arrested the accused persons. SI Narender Singh seized a blue Adidas T-shirt (Ex.P-10) belonging to accused Dalip Singh vide memo Ex.PW-1/B, and a waist belt (Ex.P-9) from accused Deepak Kumar vide memo Ex.PW-1/C, in the presence of Rajinder Singh (PW-1) and Constable Budhi Singh (PW-9). The torn vest of Bahardeen was seized vide memo Ex.PW-12/A.
On 05.07.2012, accused Rahul Negi, while in police custody, allegedly made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW-2/B) in the presence of witnesses Mindal Singh (PW-2) and HC Sukh Dev (PW-13). Pursuant thereto, accused Rahul Negi allegedly led the police party to a place on the Ravinda-Palingi road and got recovered a danda (Ex.P-8), measuring 29½ inches in length and 3½ inches in thickness, from the bushes vide recovery memo Ex.PW-2/A, whereof outline sketch Ex.PW-2/C and recovery site plan Ex.PW-22/G were prepared. The investigating agency also procured the demarcation/Aks Tatima (Ex.PW-4/A) from Patwari Bhim Singh (PW-4) and the site plan (Ex.PW-5/A) from Rakesh Chander, Junior Engineer, HPPWD (PW-5). The lifted blood samples, viscera, and seized articles were dispatched to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, from where reports Ex.PW-22/H-1, Ex.PW-22/H-2, Ex.PW-22/H-3, Ex.PW-22/K, and DNA report Ex.PW-22/J were obtained. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in Court.
The learned Trial Court framed charges against accused Rahul Negi, Dalip Singh, Harish Kumar, and Deepak Kumar for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 506, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined 23 witnesses to prove its case. Complainant Shyam Singh (PW-16) and Bahardeen (PW-18) were examined as eyewitnesses. Ramesh Kumar (PW-3) deposed regarding the purchase of groceries. Dr. Kavi Raj (PW-6) and Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-17) furnished medical evidence. Rajinder Singh (PW-1), Mindal Singh (PW-2), Constable Budhi Singh (PW-9), and HC Sukh Dev (PW-13) were associated as recovery witnesses. HC Anil Kumar (PW-12), Sanjay Kumar (PW-19), ASI Bhim Singh (PW-20), ASI Hari Dass (PW-21), and SI Narender Singh (PW-22) deposed regarding various stages of the investigation. The remaining witnesses were formal in nature.
The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations in their entirety and pleaded false implication. In defence, the accused examined six witnesses: Kandu Ram, Secretary of CMP Cooperative Society, Ponda (DW-1), Palwinder (DW-2), Mahaveer Singh (DW-3), Locha Ram (DW-4), Urgyan Devi (DW-5), and Hukam Sain (DW-6). The defence also tendered certified copies of the statements of complainant Shyam Singh and Bahardeen recorded before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rampur, as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.
The learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the ocular, documentary, and expert evidence on record, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court found that the identity of the accused persons was highly doubtful due to material improvements and the absence of a Test Identification Parade; the alleged illumination at the spot was falsified; there were fatal contradictions regarding the time of occurrence and police arrival; the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were dismantled by independent attesting witnesses; and the medical and forensic evidence failed to connect the accused or the weapons with the crime. Consequently, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. It was contended that complainant Shyam Singh and Bahardeen were injured eyewitnesses whose presence at the spot was natural. It was further urged that minor contradictions were given undue prominence, the medical evidence sufficiently established homicidal death, and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were perverse, warranting interference.
We have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, and Mr. Abhinandan Thakur, Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Sheetal Vyas, learned counsels for the respondents/accused, and have carefully scrutinized the record.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the learned Trial Court fell into patent error in discarding the ocular testimonies of Shyam Singh (PW-16) and Bahardeen (PW-18). He argued that their testimonies were corroborated by their respective MLCs (Ex.PW-6/C and Ex.PW-6/D), and the recovery of the danda and waist belt stood proved. He contended that the minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence were natural and that the judgment of acquittal deserved to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents/accused, supported the judgment of the learned Trial Court and submitted that the prosecution case suffers from foundational infirmities. They contended that the eyewitnesses admitted before the Juvenile Justice Board that they were strangers to the accused, making their courtroom identification for the first time inadmissible without a Test Identification Parade. He highlighted that the independent recovery witnesses completely turned hostile, the medical evidence ruled out the alleged weapons, and the defence evidence established that the spot was enveloped in complete darkness. He submitted that the view taken by the learned Trial Court was an eminently reasonable view, which does not call for any interference.
We have given considerable thought to the rival submissions and have examined the evidence on record.
The present appeal is directed against a judgment of acquittal. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an acquittal fortifies the presumption of innocence available to an accused. The Revisional or Appellate Court will interfere with an order of acquittal only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, is founded on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where no reasonable Court could have arrived at such a conclusion on the record. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433, as under:
"24.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 legal position was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1743, and affirmed in Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 89, wherein it was observed that if the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible and plausible view based on the material on record, the Court cannot overturn the acquittal merely because another view could be formulated. The present criminal appeal must be adjudicated within these settled parameters.
The prosecution case rests primarily on the ocular testimonies of complainant Shyam Singh (PW-16) and Bahardeen (PW-18). In their depositions before the learned Trial Court, both witnesses stated that upon reaching near the Government Fair Price Shop at Ponda, they saw accused Rahul Negi, Deepak Kumar, Dalip Singh, Harish Kumar, and juvenile Avinash assaulting deceased Surjeet Singh. They deposed that the accused had thrown deceased onto the ground and were assaulting him with a danda, a belt, and fists and kick blows. They claimed that when they intervened and confronted the accused as to why they were beating Surjeet Singh, the accused did not respond, and instead, accused Deepak Kumar struck complainant with a belt, while accused Rahul Negi inflicted a blow on Bahardeen’s nose with a stick. They claimed that they managed to rescue Surjeet Singh from the clutches of the accused and brought him to their dera.
A meticulous scrutiny of the record, however, demonstrates that the ocular account is heavily tainted by material improvements and irreconcilable contradictions. In his initial statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-16/A), complainant Shyam Singh named only two individuals, namely "Twinkle" (accused Rahul Negi) and accused Deepak Kumar, while specifically asserting that the remaining assailants were "six to seven unidentified boys". The prosecution offered no explanation as to how the names of accused Dalip Singh and Harish Kumar came to be introduced into the case without the conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The credibility of these witnesses is completely demolished by their earlier depositions recorded on oath before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rampur, in State v. Avinash, arising out of the very same matter. Complainant Shyam Singh, in his statement recorded as PW-3 before the Juvenile Justice Board (Ex.D-1), categorically admitted that he did not know the names of the accused persons at the time of the incident, that neither he nor deceased had any prior acquaintance with them, and that when he got his statement recorded with the police, he had not disclosed the names of Rahul and Deepak. He conceded that he neither knew accused Rahul and Deepak nor their names. Similarly, PW-18 Bahardeen, in his statement before the Juvenile Justice Board (Ex.D-2), admitted that they had arrived at Ponda only five to seven days prior to the incident and did not know any local residents of the area.
When the eyewitnesses admittedly were complete strangers to the accused and had no prior acquaintance with them, their dock identification of all the accused persons for the first time before the learned Trial Court constitutes an impermissible material improvement. In the absence of a Test Identification Parade, the identity of the accused persons as the assailants cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned Trial Court was fully justified in holding their identification to be highly doubtful and suspicious.
The prosecution case regarding the source of light at the place of occurrence is equally untenable. The incident allegedly occurred after 07:45 p.m. / 08:30 p.m., when darkness had set in. The eyewitnesses claimed that they witnessed the assault and identified the accused in the light of an electric bulb fitted on the building of the Government Fair Price Shop. However, photograph Mark DB, produced on record, depicts complete darkness at the site. Kandu Ram (DW-1), Secretary of CMP Cooperative Society, Ponda, categorically testified that there was no electric bulb or external lighting facility installed outside the Fair Price Shop. His testimony was fully corroborated by Urgyan Devi (DW-5), a local resident residing in immediate proximity to the alleged place of occurrence. In the absence of any illumination at the spot, the claim of the eyewitnesses that they observed the minute details of the assault and identified the accused in the dark is wholly unconvincing.
The prosecution evidence is further riddled with material contradictions regarding the time of occurrence, the arrival of the police, and the subsequent conduct of complainant party. While complainant alleged that the incident occurred between 07:45 p.m. and 08:30 p.m., HC Anil Kumar (PW-12) testified that telephonic information was received at Police Post Nichar at 10:30 p.m. from an anonymous caller stating that an assault was presently underway and that police assistance was required. This establishes that an assault was allegedly taking place at 10:30 p.m., which completely contradicts the timeline propounded by complainant.
Material contradictions also exist regarding the arrival of the police and the location where they met the victim party. According to ASI Hari Dass (PW-21), when the police party reached Ponda after 11:00 p.m., complainant Shyam Singh, Bahardeen, Surjeet Singh, and Sanjay Kumar were standing at the road bifurcation point at Ponda, having already arranged a private vehicle to take the injured to the hospital. In stark contrast, Bahardeen (PW-18) testified that when the police arrived, they were present inside their dera. HC Anil Kumar (PW-12) deposed that upon reaching the spot, Bahardeen, Shyam Singh, and Surjeet Singh were walking together, with deceased being physically supported by the other two, and he made no mention of the presence of Sanjay Kumar (PW-19). Furthermore, while complainant Shyam Singh stated that deceased was lifted and brought from the spot to their dera and later shifted to the hospital, Bahardeen admitted in his statement (Ex.D-2) that they never brought deceased back to the dera and took him straight to the hospital. These material contradictions shatter the core of the prosecution narrative.
The alleged recoveries of the weapons of offence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act also failed to inspire confidence. The legal requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were settled in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, wherein it was laid down that only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered is admissible, and the discovery must be the direct outcome of the information supplied by the accused in custody.
In the present case, the prosecution asserted that pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Rahul Negi (Ex.PW-2/B), the danda (Ex.P-8) was recovered from the bushes along the Ravinda-Palingi road vide memo Ex.PW-2/A in the presence of independent witness Mindal Singh (PW-2) and HC Sukh Dev (PW-13). However, independent witness Mindal Singh (PW-2) completely turned hostile and testified that the police had brought the danda from the place of occurrence itself and deposited it at Police Station Bhabanagar, specifically denying that any recovery was effected pursuant to a disclosure statement made by accused Rahul Negi.
Although HC Sukh Dev (PW-13) supported the recovery memo, but he was an official police witness stationed at the police post. When the independent attesting witness unequivocally shatters the recovery memo and affirms that the weapon was brought from the spot by the police, the uncorroborated testimony of an interested police official cannot be made the sole bedrock to sustain a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Similarly, as regards the waist belt (Ex.P-9) allegedly recovered from accused Deepak Kumar vide memo Ex.PW-1/C, attesting witness Rajinder Singh (PW-1) conceded during his cross-examination that the belt was already lying in police custody and was not produced by any person in his presence. Consequently, the recoveries of the alleged weapons of offence were rightly discarded by the learned Trial Court.
The medical and forensic evidence also fails to support the prosecution allegations. Dr. Kavi Raj (PW-6) and Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-17) observed that if a forceful blow had been inflicted on the skull with a blunt wooden weapon like the danda (Ex.P-8), there would have been a high probability of a contrecoup injury on the opposite side of the skull. No such contrecoup injury was detected on the head of deceased. Dr. Kavi Raj further specifically opined that injuries No.1 and 2 recorded in the MLC (Ex.PW-6/B) could not have been caused by the buckle of the belt. The use of the belt as a weapon of offence was, thus, medically ruled out.
Furthermore, the reports of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (Ex.PW-22/H-1 and Ex.PW-22/H-2), reveal that no blood was detected on the danda (Ex.P-8) or the belt (Ex.P-9). Although, human blood was detected on the blue Adidas T-shirt (Ex.P-10) of accused Dalip Singh, the serological result was inconclusive regarding blood groups, and the prosecution failed to connect the blood with deceased. The DNA profiling report (Ex.PW-22/J) was likewise inconclusive. Thus, the scientific evidence completely failed to establish any nexus between the accused, the seized weapons, and the crime.
Lastly, the spot Tatima (Ex.PW-4/A) prepared by Patwari Bhim Singh (PW-4) and the site plans (Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-21/A) reveal that the alleged scene of occurrence was situated in the heart of village Ponda, immediately adjacent to the residential house of one Tara Singh, the local Patwarkhana, and the Society Depot. Urgyan Devi (DW-5), wife of Tara Singh, categorically testified that on the intervening night of 02nd/03rd July, 2012, no altercation, noise, or incident took place outside her house, and that she learnt of the alleged incident only the following morning when the police arrived in the village. It is highly improbable that an assault involving multiple assailants beating a victim in the centre of an inhabited village would go completely unnoticed by neighbouring residents. The omission of the investigating agency to examine any independent resident of the locality further undermines the prosecution case.
In view of the material improvements and contradictions in the ocular evidence, the failure to establish identity, the falsification of the source of light, the collapse of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the lack of corroboration from medical and forensic evidence, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court represent a plausible, balanced, and reasonable view grounded firmly in the evidentiary material. The judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any patent perversity or misreading of evidence, and no compelling grounds have been established to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
No other point was urged.
In view of the above, the present criminal appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The criminal appeal stands disposed of, as also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
In compliance with the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the respondents/accused are directed to furnish personal bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks, which shall remain effective for a period of six months, with the stipulation that in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of leave, the respondents/accused, upon receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The records of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.