State of H.P. vs Tara Singh - 2026 Supreme(HP) 359

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Tara Singh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Table of Content
1. facts of encroachment case and trial acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties argue demarcation validity and proof. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. demarcation invalid without procedure and notice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. trespass requires intent to annoy or insult. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. forest offence needs specific land notification. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.5.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 26 of Indian Forest Act. (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 before the l