HP High Court Upholds Acquittal in Molestation Case, Cites Need for Cautious Scrutiny of Victim’s Testimony Amid Strained Relations
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the acquittal of an accused in a molestation case under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that when a victim acknowledges having no cordial relations and not being on speaking terms with the accused, her testimony warrants heightened scrutiny. Citing material contradictions in the evidence, unexplained delay in reporting the incident, and lack of corroboration, the Bench declined to interfere with the appellate court’s order of acquittal. It held that such interference is justified only when the finding is perverse or overlooks essential evidence.
The case arose from an incident reported to have occurred on 23 August 2008 at Hatwar Bazar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The complainant alleged that while she was returning home in the evening, the accused, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, obstructed her path, teased her, and touched her inappropriately, thereby outraging her modesty. She stated that she resisted and bit the accused’s arm during the struggle. According to her, a vehicle arrived at the spot, prompting the accused to flee. She initially reported the incident to the President of the Gram Panchayat, who advised her to approach the police or the court. She later filed a written complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police for investigation. An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
The police investigated the matter by preparing a site plan, recording witness statements, and collecting testimonies. The complainant’s version was supported by Ramesh Kumar, a bystander present in the vehicle, and Sulekha Thakur, the local Panchayat head. Other witnesses either turned hostile or did not corroborate the complainant’s allegations. The investigating officer did not arrange a medical examination of the accused to verify the alleged bite marks.
The accused denied the allegations, claiming that the complaint was false and motivated by personal enmity, as the complainant had borrowed money from him and there were strained relations between them. He asserted that the complaint was instigated by the local Panchayat head with whom he had disputes.
The trial court found the complainant’s testimony credible and supported by two witnesses, ruling that the defence’s explanation of false implication was unconvincing. It convicted the accused under Sections 341 and 354 IPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment of fifteen days and one year respectively, along with fines, with both sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the conviction, highlighting inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements regarding the timing and circumstances of the incident, the discrepancy about whether the rescuers arrived in a jeep or a car, and the absence of immediate reporting to the police. The appellate court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court, arguing that the appellate court had given undue importance to minor contradictions and ignored corroborative testimonies. The High Court, however, upheld the acquittal, citing the need for greater caution when the victim admitted to having no cordial relations with the accused, coupled with delayed reporting and lack of corroborative evidence.
The Court cited Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035, which held that interference is permissible only if the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading of material evidence, or if no reasonable view is possible other than conviction. The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s principle that “in the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence… Secondly, the accused, having secured his acquittal, the presumption of the accused’s innocence is further reinforced.”
Addressing delay, the Court noted: “The incident occurred on 23.08.2008, and the complaint was filed before the Court on 28.08.2008. This is no explanation. She and Sulekha Thakur (PW2), Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, are residents of Hatwar, and the victim could have approached the Pardhan on the date of the incident or on the next morning.” Further, the Court recorded that a claim of lack of funds to approach counsel could not justify not reporting to the police, as such reporting required no expenditure.
The Court observed that the victim’s assertion of having approached the police was contradicted by PW9 Ram Dass, who stated that no such complaint was made between 23 and 30 August 2008. Referring to Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188, the Court recorded that delay in lodging FIR often results in embellishment and fabrication.
On the question of corroboration, the Court noted: “It was specifically mentioned in the complaint that the informant bit the accused to save herself. No medical examination of the accused was conducted to verify whether he had any bite marks. The medical examination would have provided valuable corroboration… its absence will make the prosecution’s case suspect.”
Examining witnesses’ depositions, the Court recorded that PW5 failed to identify the accused, while PW3 contradicted the complainant regarding the type of vehicle (jeep versus Maruti 800) and the time of incident. The Court observed: “Different witnesses have given different versions regarding the time, which would make their testimonies doubtful.”
The Court further recorded that the complainant admitted to inimical relations with the accused, requiring her testimony to be scrutinized with caution. Panchayat witnesses PW7 and PW8 denied that the complainant made any molestation complaint at the Panchayat meeting.
The testimony of PW11, regarding a prior incident of molestation, was held inadmissible under Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court cited precedents including Emperor v. Panchu Das, Emperor v. Gangaram Hari Pandit, and Noor Mohamed v. King, noting that evidence of prior crimes cannot be admitted to show propensity.
The Court concluded: “The prosecution’s version was full of material contradictions… The learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view, which could have been taken on the evidence led in the present case. This Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Appellate Court while acquitting the accused, even if another view is possible.”
In the final order, the High Court held: “In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this judgment, along with records of the learned Courts below, be sent back forthwith.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Lokinder Kuthleria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:31291
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 197 of 2013
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
