Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Sameel Deen - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 272 of 2024
Decided On : 15-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Jagan Nath, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

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 double-edged; minor discrepancies natural post time-lapse.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 326 - Attempt to murder - Injuries inflicted with knife on chest, neck and hand - Grievous in nature but not dangerous to life - Conviction under Section 307 altered to Section 326 - Sentence reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- upheld - Conviction under minor offence permissible without separate charge as per Section 237 CrPC. (Paras 36-42)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 - Cross-examination as to previous statements - Attention of witness must be specifically drawn to contradictory parts before impeaching credit - Non-compliance prevents use of contradictions to discredit testimony - Courts cannot suo motu notice unproved contradictions. (Paras 14-17)

(C) Criminal law - Enmity or strained relations between parties - Double-edged sword furnishing motive for crime as well as false implication - Mere existence insufficient without evidence of fabrication. (Paras 10, 19, 26)

(D) Medical evidence - Alternative hypothesis of injuries (e.g., fall on broken glass) - Insufficient to discard credible eyewitness testimony when corroborated by recoveries and prompt reporting. (Paras 20, 28) (E) Witnesses - Minor discrepancies after lapse of time - Natural and not fatal unless shaking core of testimony - Prompt FIR rules out deliberation. (Paras 31, 33-34)

Facts of the case:
Wife stabbed by husband with knife on chest and attempted on neck while she was on bed; she caught blade injuring hand and cried for help; neighbors arrived seeing accused holding her head between knees with knife; bleeding injuries; prompt police intimation, statement recorded, site plan, blood-stained knife, clothes seized matching blood group; defence of scuffle over food leading to fall on dressing table mirror rejected for lack of supporting evidence like broken glass.

Findings of Court:
Victim's testimony credible, corroborated by neighbors, medical evidence and recoveries; defence version falsified; ingredients of Section 307 absent but Section 326 established.

Issues: Whether contradictions impeach victim; defence scuffle version acceptable; injuries qualify under Section 307; sentence excessive.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to confront witness with prior statement bars contradiction; strained relations cut both ways; medical alternatives yield to reliable ocular evidence; conviction alterable to minor offence; discrepancies immaterial if not material to core.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction modified to Section 326 IPC; sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-, default one year simple imprisonment.

Table of Content
1. husband stabbed wife with knife causing bleeding injuries. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial convicted accused under s.307 on eyewitnesses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defence claims scuffle injuries from strained relations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. enmity double-edged; prosecution version corroborated fully. (Para 10)
5. contradictions impeach only via s.145 evidence act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. sharp-edged grievous injuries not life-threatening. (Para 18 , 27 , 28)
7. scuffle defence rejected; unsupported by evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 35)
8. eyewitness pw2 saw accused with knife over victim. (Para 21 , 22)
9. pw4 hearsay inadmissible as non-res gestae statement. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
10. prompt fir excludes false implication possibility. (Para 29 , 30)
11. blood-stained recoveries link accused to crime scene. (Para 31 , 32)
12. minor discrepancies do not discredit prosecution. (Para 33 , 34)
13. injuries satisfy s.326 but not s.307 ipc. (Para 36)
14. s.326 conviction allowed without charge under s.307. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
15. conviction modified to s.326; sentence reduced. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.3.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.3.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. (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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant/victim Rani Begum (PW1) is the wife of the accused. Three children were born to her. They were married and settled. The informant and accused were residing together in the house. She was watching the television on 8.6.2021 at about 9.00 PM, and the accused was sitting in the verandah. She heard the noise of the utensils in the kitchen. She thought that the accused might be taking the food. The accused came to the place where the informant/victim was sitting. He inquired from the informant as to what she was doing. The informant replied that the weather was hot. The accused inflicted a blow with a knife on the informant’s chest. He again inflicted a blow of the knife on the informant’s neck. The informant tried to catch hold of the knife and sustained injuries on her hand. She shouted for help. Vandana (PW2) and her son reached the spot. She was bleeding from the neck, chest and fingers. Shukra Begum (PW4) and Monu alias Rajdeen, took her to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police, and Entry No.21 was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Yash Pal (PW14), HC Daleep Singh, Constable Upmanayu and HHG Pawan Kumar were sent for the verification of the information. ASI Yash Pal (PW14) filed an application (Ex.PW6/A) before the Medical Officer for seeking his opinion regarding the fitness of the injured to make the statement. Dr Prachi Chambiyal (PW6) certified that the victim was fit to make the statement. She also conducted the medical examination of the victim and found that she had suffered multiple injuries which could have been caused by means of sharp-edged weapon like knife within 24 hours of the examination. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW6/D). ASI Yash Pal (PW14) recorded the statement (Ex.PW1/A) of Rani Begum and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW9/B) was registered. ASI Yashpal (PW14) went to the spot and prepared th