Supreme Court – Daily Orders
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Devinder Kumar on 24 June, 2025
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 21421/2025
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 25-09-2024 in CRA
No. 174/2014 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DEVINDER KUMAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 142189/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AND IA No.
142190/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS)
Date : 24-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR (NP)
For Respondent(s) :
The Court made the following
O R D E R
1. None present for the State even in second call.
2. Delay condoned.
3. The instant special leave petition is directed against the
judgment dated 25th September, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh rejecting the Criminal Appeal
No. 174 of 2014 preferred by the State for assailing the judgment
Signature Not Verified
dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.06.26
16:35:21 IST
Reason:
No. 1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, acquitting the respondents for the
1
offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2)(g) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence
placed on record.
5. On going through the detailed judgment passed by the High
Court, we find that the victim was a young girl about 17 years and
4 months of age at the time of the incident and went missing on 11 th
June, 2012. The complaint regarding the girl not being traceable
was lodged by her elder sister (PW-2) at the Boileauganj Police
Station on 12th June, 2012.
6. The prosecution claims that when the family members were
returning home from the police station on 12th June, 2012 after
lodging the report, the victim was found at Mohari near railway
station by the complainant and her brother. She was weeping and on
being consoled, she stated that she had been taken away by two
persons in a pick up vehicle towards the Shimla side. She had
never seen those two persons earlier nor were they known to her and
that she did not remember the number of the vehicle. She did not
give any significant details to her family members except the
complainant that she had been raped.
7. The victim was enquired by the police officials on a number of
occasions but she neither gave the details of the incident nor did
she disclose the identity of the alleged assailants. For the first
time, on 30th June, 2012, she gave out the names of the respondents
as being the assailants who had subjected her to forcible sexual
assault. The trial Court found innumerable contradictions and
loopholes in the prosecution evidence and accordingly acquitted the
2
respondents of the charges extending them the benefit of doubt.
The well-reasoned judgment dated 29th November, 2013 passed by the
trial Court has also been affirmed by the High Court vide the
impugned judgment dated 25th September, 2024 which exhaustively
discusses the evidence available on record, upholding the acquittal
of the respondents.
8. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court
that while considering an appeal against acquittal, the appellate
Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of the
acquittal which can be done only in a situation, where no view
other than the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence
available on record. If two views, one favouring the accused and
the other favouring the prosecution are possible, then the
appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its view
over the view taken by the trial Court.
9. In the present case, we feel that the only permissible view is
consistent with the innocence of the accused. Hence, there exist
no plausible ground to entertain the special leave petition calling
into question the acquittal of the respondents.
10. Two competent Courts, i.e., the trial Court and the High Court
have recorded concurrent findings of facts in acquitting the
respondents and rejecting the appeal preferred by the State against
their acquittal. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in such
concurrent findings of facts which ex facie do not suffer from any
infirmity whatsoever.
11. Resultantly, the special leave petition is dismissed on
merits.
3
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NITIN TALREJA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4