IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 406 of 2014

Reserved on: 11.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

State of H.P. ....Appellant

Versus

Veena Devi & another ....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the appellant/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General.

For the Respondents : M/s Jai Ram Sharma and Sahil Dixit,

Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

h The present appeal is directed against the judgment

gdated 18.06.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First

iClass, Court No. II, Dehra, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial

Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the

learned Trial Court for convenience.)

Whether reporters of the 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 against thPe accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that P awna Devi was going to her filed on 03.04.2010 at about 6:o00 p.m. Veena Devi (accused No. 1) stopped and told her th at the field where she (the informant) was going belornged to her (accused). The accused abused and beat the informant. Satish Kumar (accused No. 2) also reached on the spot. He had an iron pipe with him. He inflicted injury on the informant with the iron pipe. The informant shouted for help. Braham Dutt (PW-3) reached the spot and rescued the informant from the accused. The matter was reported to the police, and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered. An application (Ext.PW-8/A) was filed for the informant’s medical examination. Dr Amit Verma (PW-7) examined the informant and found that she had sustained multiple injuries. He advised a CT scan and an X-ray of the head and referred the informant to Dr Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College & Hospital, Tanda, District Kangra, H.P., for further management. The nature of the injury was found to be grievous after the CT Scan. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-7/E). HC Anil Kumar (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/B). The informant prodPuced one shirt (Ext. P-2) and one Duptta (Ext.P-3), which were put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘H’. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ext.PW -1/B). Pawna Devi (PW-1) produced one iron pipe (Exto.P-1), which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/C). The stateme nts of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and ther challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commiss ion of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Pawna Devi (PW-1) is the informant. Rajo Devi (PW-2), Baraham Dutt (PW-3), and Balak Ram (PW-4) are the eyewitnesses. Nirmla Devi (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. Karam Singh (PW-6) signed the F.I.R. Dr Amit Verma (PW-7) examined the injured. HC Anil Kumar (PW-8) investigated the matter.

Karam Chand (PW-9) and Pawan (PW-10) did not support the prosecution’s case. P

5. The accused, in their statements reco.rded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case it is entirety. They stated that the accused Satish Kumar was working in the Indian Navy. He returned to his village in 1998 after his retirement. He and the informant’s husband owned the property jointly, and when the accursed demanded his share, it led to bitterness between the parties. The accused Satish Kumar had also len