Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Harish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused threatened naib tehsildar with stick. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court convicted on informant testimony. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellate upheld section 506 conviction only. (Para 7) |
| 4. arguments on evidence for section 506. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional court limits to jurisdictional errors. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. intimidation needs alarm-causing intent. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. witnesses fail to corroborate threats. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. erroneous reliance on sole testimony. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 9. revision allowed; conviction set aside. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld. (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
Revisional jurisdiction limited to correcting perversity; conviction under IPC Section 506 quashed for lack of proof of intent to cause alarm via uncorroborated threat testimony.
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; cheating requires dishonest intent from outset, not mere promise breach; criminal intimidation needs intent to alarm or compel action.
Revisional court acquitted accused in face of concurrent convictions, holding lower courts perversely overlooked prosecution doubts from witness contradictions, enmity, suspect recovery and accused's....
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....
The victim's right to appeal is restricted by statute, and a revision for sentence enhancement is permissible without prior appeal against acquittal; principles of proportionality in sentencing were ....
Revisional court cannot reappraise evidence or interfere with concurrent conviction for assault on public servant absent perversity; official testimonies, medical evidence and cross-suggestions suffi....
The court prioritizes the legitimacy of witness credibility and amicable settlements in criminal proceedings, allowing for the quashing of convictions when the informant withdraws their support.
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 353 and 504 IPC, establishing that abusive actions towards a public servant can constitute assault, deterring them from performing their official duti....
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
