The revisional court's interference in criminal matters is limited and should not substitute its views for those of the trial courts without evident jurisdictional errors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 4067 of 2013 Reserved on : 15.07.2025 Date of Decision: 28.07.2025 State of H.P. .... Petitioner Versus Jai Krishan @ Nandu & Ors. .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ Yes For the pehtitioner : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

iFor the complainant : Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.01.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

by the petitioner/State against the judgment dated 27.06.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class(I), Palampur, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 323, 325 & 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). It was asserted that Nand Lal Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat intimated the police on 18.04.2004 that a quarrel had taken place in village Nanahar. SI Ashok Parmar (PW-9), HHC Surender Pal and HHC Ajit Singh were sent to verify the correctness of the information. The informant, Santosh Kumar (PW-1), made a statement (Ex. PW1/A) that he was repairing the Kuhl on 16.04.2004 at 10.45 am with Dharam Chand (PW-5), when Jai Krishan @ Nand Lal came to the spot and inquired from him (Santosh Kumar) as to what he was doing. Santosh Kumar replied that he was repairing the Kuhl. Jai Krishan got infuriated and tried to remove the fence erected by the informant Santosh Kumar. Lata Devi (PW-2) also reached the spot. Informant and Lata Devi tried to prevent Jai Krishan from uprooting the fence. However, Jai Krishan slapped Lata Devi. Kishori Lal, Ramesh Chand, Ravi Kumar, Mahinder Singh, Puno Devi, Gaitri Devi, Ravi Kumar, Mahindra Devi, Anju Devi, and Gudo Devi came to the spot armed with sticks. They gave beatings to the informant, Lata Devi and Dharam Chand. Partap Chand, Jagdish Chand (PW-4), and Khem Chand came to the spot after hearing the noise. The accused also gave beatings to Jagdish Chuand and Khem Chand. The statement was sent to the Policoe Station, where FIR (Ex. PW9/A) was registered. SI AshCok Parmar filed an application (Ex. PW9/C) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Nirdosh Gupta (PW-6) conducted the medical examination of Khem Chand and found that he had sustained injuries. X-ray was advised, and Hmultiple small contusion and lecirated wound were detected. The nature of injuries sustained by Khem Chand was grievous, which could have been caused by a blunt weapon. MLC (Ex. PW6/A) was issued. Dr. Nirdosh Gupta examined Lata Devi and found that she had sustained simple injuries. He issued the MLC (Ex. PW6/B). He also examined Santosh Kumar and found that he had sustained simple injury. He issued the MLC (Ex.PW6/C). He also examined Dharam Chand and found that he had sustained grievous injury. He issued the MLC (Ex.PW6/D). Dr. Arvind Bhan (PW-7) went through the X-ray and issued reports (Ex. PW-7/D to Ex. PW- 7/F). SI Ashok Parmar went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/E). Jai Krishan produced the sticks, which were seized vide memo (Ex. PW1/B). Santosh Kumar produced a T-shirt (Ex. P7), which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). Khem Chand produced a shirt (Ex. P9), which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). Lata Devi produced a shirt (uEx. P8) which