IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 106 of 2014

Reserved on: 24.11.2025

Date of Decision: 17.12.2025.

State of H.P. f ...Appellant.

Versus

Sandeep Kumar ...Respondent.

Coram u

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate

General.

For the Respondent : Mr Amit Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

i The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawali, District Kangra (H.P) (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were

arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

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

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a Challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Budhi Singh (PW-3), had set up a tent at Village Sihal in the house of Chaman Lal on 12.10.2011. He went to collect his articles at about 12:30 pm, and found that forty-five spoons and five plates were misusing. When he questioned the accused, Sandeep Kumaro, s/o Chaman Singh, about the shortage, the accused asCked the informant to wait and subsequently inflicted a blow on the informant's head by means of a bottle. The informant sustained bleeding injuries on his head and was subsequently taken to the hospital. An intimation in this regard Hwas given to the police. SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. The informant made a statement (Ex. PW-3/A), which was sent to the Police Station, leading to the registration of the FIR (Ex. PW-5/A). SI Chaman Lal filed an application (Ex. PW-5/B) for conducting the Medical Examination of the informant/victim. Dr Vivek Sood (PW-4) conducted the examination and found that the victim, Budhi Singh, had sustained multiple injuries which could have been caused by means of a broken bottle. He issued the MLC (Ex. PW-4/A). SI Chaman Lal (PW-5) proceeded to the spot and prepared the Site Plan (Ex. PW-5/C). He seized the broken bottle (Ex. P-1) from the accused. The bottle was sealed in a cloth parcel with a seal impression 'C'. The seal impression (Ex. PW-5/D) was taken on a separate piece of cloth, and the seal was handed over to Vinod Kumar after use. The bottle was seized vide seizure memo (Eux. PW-1/A). After recording the statements of the witnesseos as per their version and completing the necessaryC investigation, the Challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to charge the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. Vishal Sharma (PW1) and Vinod Kumar (PW2) did not support the prosecution’s case. Budhi Singh (PW3) is the informant/victim. Dr Vivek Sood (PW4) medically examined the informant/victim. SI Chaman Lal (PW5) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, admitted that marriage was being solemnised in his family in village TutwaN Sihal. He admitted that the informant had supplied Crockery and a tent. He denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. He stated that the witnesses were interested and they deposed falsely against him He did not adduce any defence evidence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that it was an admitted case of the informant/victim that many persons had gathered at the spot; however, the prosecution failed to associate any indepen dent witness