Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Modesty Outrage Case

Appellate Court's Decision to Overturn Conviction Affirmed Due to Insufficient Evidence and Delay in Filing FIR

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of Rajesh Kumar, previously convicted by a trial court for offenses under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to wrongful restraint and outraging the modesty of a woman. The state's appeal against the appellate court's decision to overturn the conviction was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's reasoning that the prosecution failed to present consistent and credible evidence.

The original conviction, delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, was based on the testimony of the victim and corroborating witnesses. However, the appellate court found significant contradictions in the victim's testimony and deemed the delay in filing the FIR suspicious. The appellate court highlighted that the victim's explanation for the delay was inadequate and raised doubts about the authenticity of the accusations.

The High Court noted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, which restrict interference in acquittal judgments unless there is patent perversity, misreading, or omission of material evidence. It emphasized the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and stated that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.

Despite the state's argument that minor contradictions should not undermine the victim's testimony, the High Court found the appellate court's judgment reasonable and supported by evidence. The court reiterated the importance of scrutinizing evidence with utmost care in cases where delays in lodging FIRs occur, as such delays can lead to embellishments or concoctions.

This decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in handling appeals against acquittals, ensuring that convictions are based on solid and incontrovertible evidence.

Bottom Line:

The appellate court's interference with an acquittal judgment requires patent perversity, misreading or omission of material evidence, or the impossibility of two reasonable conclusions from the evidence. 

Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 341 and 354, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 14

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2777638