Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Lekh Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of wrongful confinement incident (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial and appellate courts upheld conviction (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioners claim false implication due land dispute (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. state defends lower court judgments (Para 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. contradiction requires drawing witness attention (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. section 504 needs intentional provocation breach (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. police testimony reliable if trustworthy (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. hostile witness usable if corroborated (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 39) |
| 10. related witnesses credible after scrutiny (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 11. no adverse inference absent material witnesses (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 12. impeached witness testimony discarded (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 13. section 342 conviction based on corroboration (Para 56) |
| 14. deterrent sentence for deliberate offence (Para 57) |
| 15. acquittal under section 504, uphold 342 (Para 58 , 59) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.7.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, M
Conviction under IPC S.342 r/w 34 upheld on corroborated testimony of confinement; S.504 r/w 34 set aside as abuse lacked provocation for breach of peace. Revisional jurisdiction limited, absent perv....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot re-appreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice; injured witness testimony highly rel....
The court ruled that a witness cannot be recalled to confront them with subsequent statements for impeachment, as only previous statements are permissible under the Evidence Act.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 is limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent conviction for assaulting public servant, causing simple hurt and damaging pu....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to confront key witnesses undermines the credibility of its narrative.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC 397 limited to patent defects/perversity; cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent convictions based on credible testimony despite minor discrepancies or....
(1) Proof of fact – Law does not contemplate stitching pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable do....
The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution case, and minor discrepancies in police testimonies do not undermine their credibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
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
