IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 38 of 2015

Reserved on: 28.11.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026.

Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the Petitioner : Mr Lalit Kumar Sharma,

Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy

g Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment

dated 12.12.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Shimla, camp at Rohru (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2011 and order of sentence dated 23.06.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (learned

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

Trial Court) were 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 giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was stated that the victim/informant, Phul Kumari (PW2), was employed as a Chowkidar in the orchard of Rajinder Singh (the accused). She left the job and started working as a Chowkid ar in the orchard of Jagmal Singh (PW4). Rajinder Singh owed the informant’s wages of five months. The informant demanded her wages, but the accused evaded the issue. She went to the orchard of the accused on 31.07.2009 at about 4 PM and demanded the money. The accused was sleeping at that time. She called him. Accused woke up, started beating the informant and threw her off the Verandah. She sustained injuries. She narrated the incident to Min Bahadur (PW1) and Jagmal Singh (PW4), who advised her to make a complaint before the police. She went to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police. The police recorded an entry in the daily diary (Ext.PW2/A). Dr Anajana (PW3) medically examined the victim and found that she had sustained multiple injuries. She advised X-ray, and a fracture of the fourth metacarpal proximal, 1/3^rd of the fourth metacarpal was detected in the X-ray. The nature of the injury was stated to be grievous. The police registered the FIR (Ext.PW6/C). HC Tenjing Chhering (PW6) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/A) and recorded the statements of witnuesses as per their version. After the completion of thoe investigation, the challan was prepared and presented Cbefore the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to prove its case. Min Bahadur (PW1) accompanied the victim to the police station. Phul Kumari (PW2) is the informant/victim. Dr Anjana (PW3) medically examined the victim. The victim narrated the incident to Jagmal Singh (PW4), who advised her to report it to the police. Constable Trilok Chand (PW5) proved the entry in the daily diary. HC Tenjing Cheering (PW6) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that the witnesses were interested and deposed against him falsely. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by the statement of Jagmal Singh (PW4) and the medical evidence. The injuries sustained by the victim were found to be grievous. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple