Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 18.03.2026 vs Of on 7 May, 2026
2026:HHC:15100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2014
Reserved on: 18.03.2026
Decided on: 07.05.2026.
.
State of Himachal Pradesh
..... Appellant
Versus
of
Om Parkash @ Sonu .... Respondent
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
/State General.
For the Respondent : Mr Janesh Gupta, Legal Aid Counsel.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
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
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
2
2026:HHC:15100
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.)
.
2. 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.
of
It was asserted that the accused was an under-trial prisoner. He
was to be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
rt
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
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
3
2026:HHC:15100
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.
3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to
of
summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was
charged with the commission of an offence punishable under
rt
section 224 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. 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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:15100
5. 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.
of
6. Learned trial Court held that the statements of
prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material
rt
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.
7. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:15100
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.
of
8. I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy
Advocate General, for the appellant/State and Mr Janesh Gupta,
rt
learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.
9. 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.
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:15100
10. 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
of
accused had no money with him and could not have gone
anywhere. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view, and
rt
this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the
learned trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal
be dismissed.
11. I have given a considerable thought to the
submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records
carefully.
12. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:15100
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 isbased 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 onof
record.”
13. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of
rt
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 afteracquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable
views are possible on the basis of the record, the
acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention isonly warranted where the Trial Court’s view is perverse,
based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, orresults in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover,
the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by
the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it andassigning 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.”
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:15100
14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. 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
of
down from the bus and started running toward Baijnath after a
person. He also ran after that person, but the person ran away.
rt
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.
16. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
9
2026:HHC:15100
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.
17. 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
of
goes directly to the new Bus Stand. He admitted that the buses
are available only from the new Bus Stand. He has not provided
rt
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.
18. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:15100
19. 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.
20. HC Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) stated in his cross-
examination that the accused was arrested on 12.07.2013 at
of
12:30 at Maranda. HHC Dile Ram (PW-1) stated in his cross-
examination that the accused was apprehended the next day at
rt
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.
21. 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
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:15100
increased his chances of arrest and frustrated the very purpose
of the escape.
22. 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.
23. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a
of
reasonable view that could have been taken based on the
evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, and this Court
rt
will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial
Court, even if another view is possible.
24. No other point was urged.
25. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it
is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
26. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the
learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
07 May, 2026.
th
Judge
(ravinder)
::: Downloaded on – 08/05/2026 14:50:27 :::CIS
