Presence & Testimony Of Chance Witness Requires Careful Scrutiny: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal In Assault Case
The Court held that where the presence of alleged eyewitnesses is doubtful and the prosecution's evidence suffers from inconsistencies, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the testimony of a chance witness must be examined with due care and caution and that such a witness must satisfactorily establish his presence at the place of occurrence, particularly in cases resting on ocular evidence.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC.
A Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P., (2022), observed: “the testimony of a chance witness is to be seen with due care and caution and his presence on the spot should be satisfactorily established.”
Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the appellant/State, while P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, appeared for the respondents/accused.
Background
The prosecution's case was that the informant and his brother were assaulted by the accused persons near their shop. It was alleged that the accused inflicted injuries using bricks and blunt force, resulting in grievous injury, including loss of a tooth.
The police registered the FIR after medical examination and filed a charge sheet under relevant provisions of the IPC. The prosecution examined multiple witnesses, including the informant, the injured witness, the alleged eyewitnesses, and medical experts.
The accused denied the allegations and contended that the case was false and motivated by a land dispute between the parties.
The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the accused, noting inconsistencies in witness testimony, delay in the FIR, and lack of reliable corroboration.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Court began by reiterating the settled principles governing interference in an appeal against acquittal. Referring to Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) and State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2025), the Court held that interference is warranted only when the acquittal is perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or when no reasonable view supporting acquittal is possible.
The Court examined the delay in registration of FIR and held that the trial court had erred in treating it as fatal, noting that the delay was explained by the time taken to obtain a medical opinion. However, the Court clarified that this aspect alone was not sufficient to overturn the acquittal.
The Court then scrutinised the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and found material inconsistencies. It noted contradictions between the informant and other witnesses regarding the identity of assailants and the sequence of events, as well as improvements made in court which were not reflected in the FIR.
The Court further observed that the relationship between the parties was strained due to a land dispute, and therefore, corroboration of interested witnesses was necessary.
On medical evidence, the Court found that the injury allegedly caused by the accused could also have resulted from a fall, particularly as the injured had consumed alcohol. The Court noted that the medical expert had stated that the tooth loss could have occurred naturally and not necessarily due to assault.
The Court then examined the testimony of the alleged independent witness and held that his presence at the spot was doubtful. It was observed that: “chance witnesses have the habit of appearing suddenly on the scene… and then disappearing… their testimonies should be seen with due care and caution.”
The Court further noted that the witness failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his presence and omitted material facts, thereby rendering his testimony unreliable.
The Court also found that another eyewitness gave a vague and generalised version without naming specific accused persons and contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the presence of persons at the scene.
The Court noted the principle governing circumstantial and ocular evidence and reiterated: “deposition of a chance witness, whose presence at the place of the incident remains doubtful, ought to be discarded.”
Upon a cumulative assessment, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a reliable and consistent version of events, and the view taken by the trial court was a reasonable one.
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:7980)
