Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Yogeshwar @ Raju on 27 February, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2018
Date of Decision: 27.2.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
.
State of Himachal Pradesh
.........Appellant/State
Versus
Yogeshwar @ Raju
.......Respondent/Accused
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the appellant:
rt Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General.
For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal appeal, lays challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.9.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-7, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in police Challan No. 29-2 of 2014, whereby learned trail Court acquitted the accused for having committed offenses punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 20.6.2014, complainant-Dalpat Ram (PW1) was sitting in a tent set up for the marriage of son of his staff member, along with Devi Singh, Chet Ram, Hukmi Ram and Jeet Ram and they all were talking to each other, at about 10:00pm, accused asked the complainant not to give ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -2- lectures. Complainant said that he is talking to others not you.
Accused suddenly got up and gave fist blows with his right fist on the teeth and forehead of complainant. Persons sitting with the .
complainant intervened and asked the accused that why he is beating the complainant, whereafter accused ran away from the spot.
Complainant telephonically informed his son Jyoti Prakash (PW2) about the incident, who visited the police station and informed about of the occurrence upon which, Rapat was also entered in General Station diary. Police official ASI Ashok Kumar and Constable Hem Prakash rt left to the spot of occurrence along with PW2 Jyoti Prakash.
Complainant met the police officials at Village Karyali, from where he was taken to CHC Jalog for medical examination. PW11 Dr. Kapil, conducted the medical of the complainant and issued MLC Ext.PW11/A, thereby opining that injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature.
3. After completion of necessary codal formalities, police conducted investigation and thereafter, presented challan in the competent court of law, which on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him for having committed offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as eleven witnesses, whereas ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -3- accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, pleaded his innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated.
4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected on .
record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of IPC and accordingly, discharged him. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial of Court, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein conviction of the respondent-accused rt after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.
5. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant/State as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr.Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective. While referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses, Mr. Kahol submitted that though prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, accused gave fist blows on the teeth and head of the accused, as a result of which, his one tooth was dislocated, but yet learned trial Court on very flimsy grounds, proceeded to acquit the accused.
6. To the contrary, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-accused, supported the impugned ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -4- judgment and contended that learned trial Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope of interference.
.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, this Court finds that though prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, but of material prosecution witnesses are PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5.
8. PW1 i.e. complainant, stated that while he was talking to rt other person sitting in the tent, respondent-accused, who was also sitting in the tent gave him beatings, as a result of which, he suffered injuries. He deposed that after the occurrence, he along with Naresh Kumar and Prem Kumar went to Karyali, where they met his son and police officials. In his cross-examination, this witness submitted that his statements were recorded only once before the police officials and that were recorded on 21.06.2014 at about 10/10:30 in the morning PW1 further deposed that he cannot say that the people, who were sitting in the tent, were having liquor. He further deposed that he cannot tell as to whether he was examined by a dentist. He admitted that he had told the doctor about the dislocation of his tooth and the tooth attached to the said dislocated tooth's socket was shaking.
9. PW2 (Jyoti Prakash), who happens to be son of the victim (PW1) in his examination-in-chief submitted that on 20.06.2014 at ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -5- about 10:30 pm, he received a call from his father, wherein he disclosed him that respondent-accused has beaten him, as a result of which, his tooth has been dislocated. He deposed that his father .
asked him to come to Karyali along with police wherefrom, he went to the police post Jalog and came to Karyali along with police in his car.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that the incident did not take place in his presence. The statement of his father was recorded by the of police at Karyali on 21st in the morning. He submitted that broken tooth was found at the spot, however, the blood stained clothes were rt taken by his father to the police from the house on the next date.
10. PW3, PW4 and PW5, who are eye witnesses to the said incident also did not support the case of the prosecution. They virtually resiled from their earlier statements made to the police during investigation. PW3 submitted that complainant and accused were talking to each other and the accused had not beaten him in his presence and he only heard about the incident. In his cross-
examination, this witness submitted that fight had not taken place in his presence. Though he admitted that he remained present in the tent only for five minutes after which he along with other persons went to have meal, but he feigned ignorance as to how the injuries were caused to the victim.
11. PW4 in his examination-in-chief submitted that both the accused and victim were talking to each other, wherein the accused ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -6- asked the victim to stop his lecture and thereafter, both started arguing with each other and accused gave a fist blow to the victim, as a result of which, blood started oozing out from his mouth and his .
tooth got dislocated. However, in his cross-examination this witness deposed that they were drinking liquor in the tent and he has no personal knowledge that the tooth of the victim was dislocated in the said incident. He also stated that he remained with the police only of once i.e. on the date of incident. He submitted that he cannot tell that how the injuries were caused to the victim.
12. rt PW5 resiled from his statement. Prosecution was unable to extract anything contrary from this witness in his cross-
examination. Since in the case at hand, all the material prosecution witnesses as have been discussed herein above, nowhere supported case of the prosecution, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned trial Court while passing impugned judgment of acquittal. PW4 deposed that he has no personal knowledge qua the dislocation of the tooth of the accused in the said incident. The statement of PW1 has not been supported by any of the eyewitnesses. PW2 got the knowledge of the incident only from PW1 (his father) telephonically, meaning thereby he had no occasion to see the incident with his eyes.
13. As per the versions of PW1 and PW2, police came to Karyali with PW2 on the date of incident itself then, there is a doubt as ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -7- to why the blood stained clothes were not taken into custody from PW1 on the said date of incident itself by the investigating officer and why only on the next date when both PW1 and PW2 went to police post .
Jalog, they took the blood stained clothes alongwith them. As per version of PW2, police went to Karyali in the car of PW2 which is evident from Ext. PW7/A, however, the investigating officer while deposing before the learned trial Court submitted that they went to the of spot in the car of Rekha, i.e. sister-in-law of Jyoti Prakash (PW2). In his cross-examination, this witness firstly admitted that the dislocated rt tooth of the victim was taken into custody and was handed over to the police officials which complainant had brought from his home. He submitted that he has specified in his spot map the location where he found the dislocated tooth, however perusal of the spot map Ext.
PW10/B nowhere reveals the same.
14. In the case at hand, prosecution failed to prove that beatings were given to the victim by the accused, as a result of which, he suffered injuries. Medical report of the medical expert, if perused in entirety, nowhere proves case of the prosecution. PW8 Dr. Tarun Shastri, M.O. Suni, who examined the patient deposed that he has nowhere mentioned about the dislocation of the tooth of the victim and only mentioned that there was lacerated wound with swelling over right fourth and fifth base of meta carpal region and advised the x-ray.
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -8-He deposed that no fracture was found in the X-ray and injury was opined to be simple.
15. PW11 Dr. Kapil examined the victim on the request of the .
police officials, but he nowhere discussed about the reported injury, if any, suffered by the victim and further for the first time, opined about the dislocation of the upper incisor tooth out of its socket. He further opined that tooth shown to him matches the upper right incisor tooth of plate from where it is supposed to be removed. However, in his cross-
examination, he admitted that he has not discussed about the shaking rt of the tooth attached to the said tooth plate. Further admitted that he is not dental specialist and the report of the matching of the dislocated tooth with its tooth plate can only be given by the dental expert.
16. If the statements of PW8 and PW11 are read in conjunction, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of afore witnesses, especially with regard to dislocation of tooth as PW11 himself admitted in his cross-
examination that he is not dental specialist and cannot state that it is the same tooth, which has been dislocated.
17. Having carefully perused the evidence available on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the respondent-accused that since there are material contradictions in the statements made by prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS -9- witnesses, learned court below rightly did not place reliance upon same. Reliance is placed on Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC .
645, wherein it has been held as under:-
"45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be of noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent rt consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability.
Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court.
There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses."
18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court sees no reason to differ with the well reasoned judgment passed ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS
- 10 -
by the learned trial Court, which otherwise appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence adduced on record and the same is accordingly upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid .
of any merits.
February 27, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 20:32:25 :::CIS