Court finds no grounds for interference in trial court's acquittal of Rakesh Kumar and others accused of assault, citing lack of credible evidence and reasonable doubt.
Shimla, March 20, 2026 - The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the acquittal of Rakesh Kumar and others in a criminal case involving allegations of assault and grievous hurt. The judgment, pronounced by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, underscores the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the trial court's judgment is patently perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
The case originated from an incident on February 14, 2009, when Rajnish Kumar, the informant, and his brother Sajneesh Kumar were allegedly attacked by Rakesh Kumar and others. The trial court had acquitted the accused of charges under sections 147, 148, 323, and 325 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, citing contradictions in witness testimonies and the possibility of injuries being self-inflicted due to alcohol consumption.
The State appealed the acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to appreciate the corroborated evidence from independent witnesses and medical reports. However, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution's case was compromised by delayed FIR filing, contradictions, and the strained relationship between the parties over a land dispute.
Justice Kainthla noted that the trial court sought corroboration due to the strained relations between the informant and the accused. The judgment highlighted several inconsistencies, such as discrepancies in witness statements and the absence of soft tissue injuries to support claims of assault with bricks.
The High Court reiterated established legal standards, stating that interference with acquittals is warranted only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity or misreads material evidence. The court found that the trial court's view was reasonable given the evidence and circumstances, thus declining to overturn the acquittal.
The respondents were directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with surety for six months as per Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
Bottom Line:
Appeal against acquittal - Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal only if it is patently perverse, based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, and no reasonable person could have recorded such acquittal based on the evidence presented.
Statutory provision(s): Section 378, Section 313, Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
State of H.P. v. Rakesh Kumar, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869450
