Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Mohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 58 of 2013
Decided On : 23-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court convicted accused under ipc 354,341,323,324; acquitted scst. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant challenges investigation validity and evidence contradictions. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. ipc trial valid despite invalid scst investigation by non-gazetted officer. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. victim and corroborative evidence reliable despite hostility, exaggeration. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. human teeth bite not section 324 ipc dangerous weapon. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. partly allow appeal; acquit under 324 ipc, uphold others. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 8.12.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Under Section 354 of the IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for one and a half years, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Under Section 341 of IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. |
| Under Section 323 of the IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for two months, pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Under Section 324 of the IPC | To suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. |
| All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. | |
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 341, 323, and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC&ST Act). It was asserted that the informant (the name being withheld to protect her identity) was returning to her home after milking her cow on 16.9.2008. The accused Mohan Lal met her on the way. He caught hold of the informant’s arm, dragged her, bit her face and removed her salwar. The informant shouted for help. The accused abused the informant and gagged her mouth. The victim kicked the accused and ran away from the spot without her salwar. Her daughter- in-law (PW-5) met her at home, who consoled her. The informant’s husband came to the home in the morning, and she narrated the incident to him. She reported the matter to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW4/A). Rajesh Kumar (PW7) sent the informant for her medical examination. Dr. Reena Chandel (PW3) examined the informant and found multiple injuries on her person, which could have been caused by a bite and a fall. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW3/A). She preserved the samples and handed them over to the police official accompanying the victim. Rajesh Kumar (PW7) visited the spot. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/A). He found human hair (Ex. P3) and a gas lighter (Ex. P4) on the spot. He put them into the separate parcels, sealed the parcels with seal ‘N’ and seized them vide memo (Ex.PW7/B). He also obtained the seal impression (Ex.PW7/C) on a separate piece of cloth. The informant produced her shirt (Ex. P6), which was put in a parcel, and the parcel was sealed with eight seals of Seal ‘W’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ex.PW7/D). Rajesh Kumar arrested the accused. He filed an application (Ex.PW7/E) for the medical examination of the accused. The Medical Officer found that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of performing the sexual intercourse. He issued the MLC (Ex.PW7/F). Rajesh Kumar recorded the statements
AI
Human teeth bite injury does not attract Section 324 IPC as teeth not 'instrument' thereunder; IPC trial valid despite invalid SC&ST investigation; hostile victim testimony usable if corroborated.
Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accuse....
Conviction under Section 307 IPC altered to Section 326 as knife injuries grievous but not life-threatening; contradictions require Section 145 Evidence Act compliance; strained spousal relations dou....
Appellate interference with acquittal only if perverse, misreading evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible; unexplained FIR delay, witness contradictions, inconclusive medicals justify uph....
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
It is true that investigation of a criminal case may be faulty inasmuch as Investigating Officer may not seize the blood stained wearing apparel of victim or that he failed to send offending weapon f....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
