Court Cites Procedural Lapses and Lack of Evidence in Dismissing State's Appeal Against Vinod Kumar's Acquittal
In a significant decision, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of Vinod Kumar, who was previously charged under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for allegedly selling country liquor without a permit. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the lower court's judgment, which had acquitted Kumar of all charges.
The case stems from a 2008 incident where police alleged that Kumar was selling liquor from his residence. However, the trial court found several discrepancies in the prosecution's case, leading to Kumar's acquittal. The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, emphasized that interference with an acquittal judgment is warranted only if it suffers from "patent perversity," misreading of material evidence, or if only a single view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible.
Key to the court's decision was the failure of the investigating officer to comply with procedural requirements under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates documenting reasons for a search and notifying a magistrate. Additionally, the independent witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's claims, and the non-production of the case property in court further weakened the State's case.
The High Court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless there is clear evidence of the accused's guilt. The prosecution's failure to produce the seized liquor and the inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt, which the trial court had rightfully recognized.
The judgment also referenced established legal precedents, highlighting the double presumption of innocence that benefits an acquitted individual. The court found no compelling reason to disturb the trial court's findings, thus affirming the acquittal.
In compliance with Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the court directed Vinod Kumar to furnish bail bonds amounting to Rs. 50,000, ensuring his presence in the event of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Bottom Line:
Parameters for interference in an appeal against acquittal laid down - Acquittal should only be interfered if judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or the only possible view from evidence is consistent with guilt of accused. Compliance with procedural requirements under CrPC and production of case property are essential for conviction.
Statutory provision(s): Punjab Excise Act Section 61(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Sections 378, 165, 313, 100, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 481
State of H.P. v. Vinod Kumar @ Ghungaru, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2793492
