Shimla, May 29,
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shimla has upheld the acquittal of Krishan Kumar, who was accused of the murder of Paras Ram. The case, originally tried in the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court in Kangra at Dharamshala, saw the accused acquitted in March 2013. This acquittal was contested by the State of Himachal Pradesh, leading to the present appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 4124 of 2013).
Case background
The incident in question occurred on February 10, 2012. According to the prosecution, Paras Ram was assaulted by Krishan Kumar with a stick, leading to severe injuries that later caused Ram’s death. The informant, Thakri Devi, and her daughter Shreshtha Devi, claimed to have witnessed the attack. However, initial reports to medical professionals indicated that Ram had sustained injuries from a fall, not an assault.
The trial court acquitted Kumar, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and the initial statements given to medical staff that attributed Ram’s injuries to a fall. Furthermore, the forensic report found no blood on the alleged murder weapon, a bamboo stick recovered at Kumar’s behest.
Later, the State appealed the acquittal, arguing that the trial court had misjudged the evidence and failed to appreciate the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. However, the High Court, comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla, upheld the acquittal. The bench concluded that the trial court had taken a reasonable view based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and found no compelling reason to overturn the acquittal.
The judgment referenced key Supreme Court rulings on the scope of appellate interference in acquittal cases. Citing Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, the High Court reiterated that an acquittal can only be overturned if the judgment is patently perverse or if material evidence has been ignored.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, reinforcing the importance of consistency and reliability in prosecution evidence
