2025 Supreme(HP) 1483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Lekh Ram and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 517 of 2024
Decided On : 15 -10-2025

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 perversity; related/police witnesses reliable if cogent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 342 and 504 read with Section 34 - Wrongful confinement and intentional insult - Victim locked in room by accused fetching lock from cowshed amid land dispute; abused using term 'sali' - Trial Court convicted and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine each under both counts r/w S.34, upheld by Sessions Judge - Revision partly allowed: Conviction under S.342 r/w S.34 upheld as victim's testimony corroborated by investigating officer's presence at spot, photographs, key production by accused; under S.504 r/w S.34 set aside as mere use of 'sali' and filthy abuses lacked essential ingredient of intent/knowledge to provoke breach of peace or other offence - Pendency of civil suit no justification for self-help; deterrent sentence appropriate. (Paras 25-29, 56-57)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction - Limited to correcting patent defects, jurisdictional errors or perversity; not appellate power to reappreciate evidence or substitute views - Concurrent findings by two courts not to be interfered absent gross error. (Paras 13-17)

(C) Evidence Act, 1882 - Section 145 - Contradiction by prior statement - Daily diary entry alleging beating unusable to contradict victim without drawing attention to specific parts during cross-examination; object is fairness to explain. Omission in prior statement not fatal if material aspects corroborated. (Paras 18-23)

(D) Witnesses - Interested/related, official/police, hostile - Related witnesses' testimony not discarded merely for relationship if reliable/cogent; police testimony trustworthy if credible, no automatic distrust; hostile witness usable to extent corroborative after scrutiny; non-examination of independents draws no adverse inference if examined witnesses suffice. (Paras 30-50)

Facts of the case:
Victim visited parental home; noticed fallen wall damaging tiles; while sewing, accused arrived, fetched lock, confined her in room, abused; called husband/police; investigating officer found her locked, accused produced/opened lock, took photos/site plan; land dispute pending between parties; prosecution examined eight witnesses, two turned hostile.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution proved wrongful confinement via direct evidence and recoveries; insult fell short of S.504 ingredients; sentences concurrent, no probation benefit as deliberate act warranting deterrence.

Issues: Whether evidence sufficiently proved offences; propriety of contradicting via unauthenticated prior entry; ingredients of S.504 satisfied; credibility of related/police witnesses; non-examination of independents; harshness of sentence/probation.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts below rightly appreciated evidence for S.342; S.504 requires intentional insult likely to provoke reasonable person to breach peace, mere abuse insufficient; revisional interference only for perversity, not reanalysis; witness credibility assessed on consistency/reliability, not status.

Result: Revision partly allowed; conviction/sentence under S.504 r/w S.34 set aside; under S.342 r/w S.34 upheld.