Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: appellant – State of Himachal Pradesh; respondents – Sushil Kumar and others (accused).
  • Proceedings: Appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 4146 of 2013) against the judgment dated 20 March 2013 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Nurpur District, Kangra, which acquitted the respondents of an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • Incident Background: On 26 July 2006, at about 11.00 a.m., the informant Pradeep Kumar alleged that Sushil Kumar, aided by his brothers Gurudev Singh and Tara, assaulted him in his field, inflicting injuries with a sickle. Parents and wives of the accused also arrived, and further beatings were reported. The matter was reported to police; an entry (Ex.PW9/A) and FIR (Ex.PW10/B) were lodged. A medical examination (Ex.PW10/A) was ordered, and Dr R.K. Mehta examined the informant, noting injuries consistent with a sharp‑edged weapon.
  • Evidence Presented:
  • 11 prosecution witnesses, including the informant (PW2), eyewitnesses (PW3‑PW6), and police officials (PW9‑PW11).
  • Medical report indicating injuries could have been caused by a sharp‑edged weapon.
  • Physical evidence: a sickle seized and sealed (Ex.PW3/A), a shirt sealed (Ex.PW2/A).
  • Contradictory statements regarding the weapon used (sickle, pickaxe, sticks) and the involvement of the accused.
  • Accused’s statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. denying all charges and offering no defence evidence.
  • Trial Court Findings: The trial court held that prosecution testimonies contradicted each other on material points, the weapon was not linked to the crime, and unexplained injuries to the accused rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, it acquitted the respondents.
  • Appellate Arguments:
  • State (Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria): Asserted that prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, with corroborating witness statements and medical evidence.
  • Respondents (Counsel Arun Kaushal): Emphasised contradictions, unexplained injuries to the accused, and the lack of a reliable prosecution narrative, urging dismissal of the appeal.
  • Legal Precedents Cited:
  • Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) – interference with acquittal requires patent perversity, misreading, or omission of material evidence.
  • State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2025) – appellate court may not disturb acquittal where two reasonable conclusions are possible.
  • Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka (2026) – outlines factors for interfering with acquittal, emphasizing “compelling and substantial reasons”.
  • Badri v. State of Rajasthan (1976) – witness modulation to fit prosecution theory undermines reliability.
  • Parshuram v. State of M.P. (2023) – non‑explanation of injuries to the accused creates doubt on prosecution’s case.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The High Court examined the evidence afresh, noting:
  • Persistent contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the weapon(s) used.
  • Lack of any explanation for injuries sustained by the accused, which the prosecution failed to address.
  • The medical report’s ambiguity (weapon broken, injury could be from a sickle) further weakened the prosecution.
  • The informant’s version changed over time, and a cross‑case was registered against the informant party, indicating possible bias.
  • Applying the Supreme Court standards, the court concluded that the trial court’s acquittal was not patently perverse nor based on omission of material evidence; therefore, no ground existed for interference.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed; the acquittal of Sushil Kumar and co‑accused stands.
  • The respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000 each, with one surety of equal amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court within four weeks. The bail shall be effective for six months, subject to appearance before the Supreme Court if a Special Leave Petition is filed.
  • All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also dismissed.
  • The judgment and trial court records are to be sent back forthwith.

Topics: Criminal Law, Acquittal Appeal