SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Nanku Ram and Ors. - Appellants 
 Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 352 of 2009
Decided on : 02-05-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender Sharma

The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 307, and 323 - Conviction and sentencing of accused for assault - The appellants were convicted for offences under IPC sections, with sentences including rigorous imprisonment and fines - The trial court's conviction was based on testimonies of the informant and witnesses, but the appeal raised concerns about contradictions and the credibility of evidence. (Paras 1, 6, 15, 36)

(B) Delay in FIR - The court noted that the delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the need for medical attention for the injured informant, referencing precedents that support this reasoning. (Paras 12, 14)

(C) Acquittal of co-accused - The court emphasized that the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence necessitated the same outcome for the appellants, as per the principle of parity in criminal law. (Paras 15, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of assaulting the informant and his son after a prior altercation. The incident occurred on 13.12.2006, and the informant sustained serious injuries requiring hospitalization. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. (Paras 36)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the delay in FIR, and the implications of the acquittal of co-accused on the appellants' conviction. (Paras 6, 15)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the contradictions in witness statements and the acquittal of co-accused. (Paras 36)

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court are set aside, acquitting the accused of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2009 and order of sentence dated 21.8.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before the learned Trial Court)were convicted and sentenced as under:

SectionSentence
307 read with Section 149 IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months
147 IPCSimple imprisonment for six months
323 IPCSimple imprisonment for six months
It was also ordered that all the aforesaid substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner asthey were arrayed before the learned Trial Court forconvenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, and 307 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant/victim, Ranveer Dutt (PW3), and his son Chandan Sharma (PW4) had gone to attend the marriage of Charan Dass at Dilman on 13.12.2006. They were returning to their home in the evening. They met accused Nanku, Sanju, and Taru at Dilman Chowk. The accused started talking to each other after watching the informant. The informant and his son proceeded further. They had reached half a km ahead of Dilman at about 7:45 P.M, when a motorcycle arrived on the spot. Accused Aman Sood was driving the motorcycle. The pillion rider had a stick in his hand. The motorcycle stopped near the informant. A Maruti car bearing registration number HP-14-6594 also reached the spot. The accused, Vijay Kumar, was driving the van. Nanku, Taru, Sanju, and 3-4 persons came out of the van. Nanku was armed with a stick. Nanku told the informant that he was portraying himself to be a big leader. Nanku and the pillion rider started beating the informant with stick. Other assailants gave beatings with fists and kicks. They also slapped him. The informant sustained injuries to his head, forehead, and right foot. He became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in a vehicle going towards Sarahan. Chandan Sharma revealed that the accused had also given beating to him and he had sustained injuries on his left leg and right arm. The informant had a scufÒe with Nanku Ram one week before the incident regarding the departure of the HRTC Bus. Nanku Ram called the informant a big leader, and the informant retaliated by slapping Nanku Ram. Nanku Ram had beaten the informant in connivance with the other persons to take revenge for the incident. The police recorded the FIR (Ex.PW3/A). S.I. Chaman Lal Bhatia (PW16) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW16/A). He seized the blood-stained hair and leaves from the bushes near the place of the incident. He sealed them in a jar with seal ‘T’ and seized the jar vide memo (Ex. PW6/A). He seized the Maruti van bearing registration number HP-14-6594 vide memo (Ex. PW8/A). The informant, Ranveer Dutt, was referred to the regional hospital, Solan, by Medical Officer PHC Sarahan. The informant remained admitted to the hospital and was discharged on 20.12.2006. The informant produced one blood-stained shirt (Ex. P3) and a Sweater (Ex. P4). S.I. Chaman Lal seized them vide memo (Ex.PW3/B) after sealing them in a parcel with seal ‘A’. S.I. Chaman Lal also seized the motorcycle bearing registration number HP-15-5043 vide memo (Ex.PW9/A). He seized the documents of the van vide memo (Ex. PW16/B). He filed an application (Ex. PW16/C) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr. M.P. Singh (PW2) conducted the medical examination of the informant and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within 12 hours of the examination. He referred the informant to the Zonal ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top