DATE: 12/09/2025
COURT: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
BENCH: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
FACTS:
On 23 August 2008, the victim was returning
home near Hatwar Bazar around 7:45 p.m. when the accused, who was intoxicated,
intercepted her. He allegedly teased her, and when she protested, he caught
hold of her breasts and outraged her modesty. To save herself, the victim bit
his arm, and during the scuffle, a jeep arrived with one Gogi inside, prompting
the accused to flee. The victim then approached the President of the Gram
Panchayat, Hatwar, who advised her to lodge a formal complaint. She filed a complaint
before the Judicial Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police. An FIR was
registered, and the investigation was conducted by SI Tilak Chand, who prepared
the site plan and recorded witness statements. After completing the
investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Sections
341 and 354 of the IPC.
During the trial, the prosecution examined
eleven witnesses. The victim (PW1) narrated the incident, while Sulekha Thakur
(PW2), the Gram Panchayat Pardhan, and Ramesh Kumar (PW3), who arrived at the
scene, corroborated her version. Some witnesses, however, did not support the
prosecution. Anju Devi (PW11) also testified that the accused had molested her
earlier. The accused, in his defence under Section 313 CrPC, denied the
allegations, claiming the victim falsely implicated him due to a monetary dispute,
as she had borrowed ₹5,000
from him. He also alleged that the Gram Panchayat Pardhan influenced witnesses
against him. The Trial Court rejected this defence, holding the victim’s testimony reliable and corroborated, and convicted the
accused under Sections 341 and 354 IPC. On appeal, however, the Appellate Court
set aside the conviction, finding material improvements in the victim’s
testimony and holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. The State has now challenged this acquittal before the High
Court.
ISSUES:
The key issues before the Court were
whether the victim’s testimony was reliable enough to sustain the conviction of
the accused under Sections 341 and 354 IPC, and whether the evidence of similar
acts (such as the alleged molestation of PW11 Anju Devi) could be admitted
under Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the accused’s guilt in
the present case.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court upheld the acquittal granted
by the Appellate Court, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. It dismissed the State’s appeal, noting that the
victim’s testimony was contradicted on crucial aspects, the evidence of similar
acts was inadmissible, and the delay in lodging the complaint further weakened
the case.
The Court reasoned that the victim’s
testimony suffered from material contradictions, particularly regarding whether
she reported the incident to the Gram Panchayat during the meeting, as key
witnesses (PW7 and PW8) denied that any such complaint was made. This
inconsistency, coupled with the delay in reporting the matter to the police,
cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Additionally,
the attempt to rely on the testimony of PW11 regarding a prior incident of
molestation was rejected as inadmissible under Section 14 of the Indian
Evidence Act, since such evidence cannot be used merely to show the accused’s
general propensity or bad character.
The Court drew support from precedents such
as Emperor v. Panchu Das, Emperor v. Gangaram Hari Pandit, and Noor Mohamed v.
King, which firmly established that evidence of prior similar acts is not
admissible unless it directly relates to intention, knowledge, or another
relevant fact connected to the case at hand. The rationale is that criminal
liability must be based on the facts of the present offence, not on assumptions
drawn from past alleged conduct. Since the prosecution relied on inadmissible
evidence and the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and unsupported by
independent corroboration, the Appellate Court’s decision acquitting the
accused was considered a reasonable and legally sustainable view. Therefore,
the High Court refused to interfere, reiterating that acquittals should not be
overturned unless the lower court’s appreciation of evidence was manifestly
perverse, which was not the case here.
ANALYSIS:
In this case, the High Court’s analysis
highlights the principle that criminal convictions must rest on evidence free
from material inconsistencies and reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied
heavily on the victim’s testimony, but contradictions particularly regarding
whether she reported the incident to the Gram Panchayat, undermined her
credibility. Independent witnesses (PW7 and PW8) did not corroborate her
version, and the delay in filing the complaint further cast doubt on the
authenticity of the allegations. The defence’s claim of false implication due
to a monetary dispute, while not conclusively established, gained weight
against the backdrop of these inconsistencies. The Court emphasized that when
the foundational testimony itself is unreliable, it cannot sustain a conviction
under Sections 341 and 354 IPC.
The rejection of PW11’s testimony under
Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act underscores a fundamental evidentiary
safeguard—that an accused cannot be convicted based on prior alleged acts to
establish bad character or propensity. Drawing from established precedents, the
Court reiterated that past conduct is inadmissible unless directly relevant to
intention or knowledge in the present case. This prevented the prosecution from
bolstering a weak case with inadmissible evidence. By upholding the Appellate
Court’s acquittal, the High Court reinforced the standard that acquittals
should not be interfered with unless the appreciation of evidence is perverse
or wholly unreasonable. The decision reflects judicial caution in balancing the
need to protect victims of sexual offences with the equally vital principle of
safeguarding the accused from conviction based on unreliable or inadmissible
evidence.
info@adhwaitha.com