1. Appeal partly allowed; conviction under POCSO set aside, conviction under IPC 354A maintained; matter for sentencing. (Para 41 , 42 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rajender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
CR.A/681/2024
Petitioner Advocates:Rajesh Verma Vinod Kumar Gupta ,Respondent Advocate: AG
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. What is the hierarchy of documents for determining the age of a victim under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act?
The court must prefer the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation certificate first, then birth certificate from panchayat, and only in absence of both, medical opinion. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
3. What procedure must be followed to contradict a witness with their previous statement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act?
The witness's attention must be drawn to the specific parts of the previous statement intended for contradiction; otherwise, the contradiction cannot be used. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
4. Is evidence of general disposition or similar crimes admissible in criminal trials?
No, evidence of similar crimes is inadmissible unless it is relevant to rebut a specific defence like accident or mistake and is of the same specific kind and proximate in time. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
5. Can a court discard a witness's testimony because the witness did not act in a particular expected manner?
No, each person reacts differently to an incident, and the court cannot discard testimony merely because the witness did not behave in a certain way. (Para 38 , 39 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
2026:HHC:22025
Cr. Appeal No. 681 of 2024
Reserved on: 28.04.2026
Date of Decision: 05.6.2026
Rajender Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?11 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate, Advocate with Ms Kanika, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342 and 354A(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 9(f) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and was sentenced as under:-
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342 & 354A of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. It was asserted that the informant (name withheld to protect her identity) was studying in class X. The accused was posted as a Security Trainer in the school. The accused called the informant and her friend on 08.06.2017. The informant went to the laboratory, and the accused called her inside the lab. As soon as the informant went inside the lab, the accused bolted the door. The informant’s friends remained outside. The informant was going out of the laboratory, and the accused asked her for ‘Ek-Ek’, and she got confused. The accused asked the informfant to take the articles of her friends as well. The accused forcibly kissed her. She came out of the laboratory while cryting. The informant disclosed the incident to her friends. She disclosed the incident on 12.06.2017 to her mother. Her mother filed an application (Ex. P-1/PW-10) before the principal (PW-9), who submitted the application to the Sexual Harassment Committee of the school for enquiry. The committee prepared the report and handed it over to the principal, who reported the matter to the police. An entry (Ext.P-1/PW-13) was recorded in the police post, and F.I.R. (Ext.P-1/PW-16) was registered in Police Station Keylong. ASI Sukh Ram (PW-16) visited the spot and took the photographs (Ext.P-2/PW-16 and Ext.P-3/PW-16). Inspector Lalit Mahant (PW-17) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.P-1/PW-17). He filed an application (Ext.P-2/PW-17) for the medical examination of the child victim. Dr Dinesh referred the victim to the gynaecologist. The victim was produced before Dr Anu Namgyal (PW-7) for her examination, but she refused to undergo her examination. She made an endorsement to this effect on the MLC (Ext.P-1/PW-15). Inspector Lalit Mahant (PW-17) arrested the accused. He filed an application (Ext.P-3/PW-17) for cofnducting the medical examination of the accused. Dr Dinesh (PW-15) examined the accused and found that he twas capable of performing sexual intercourse. He issued the MLC (Ext.P-2/PW-15). Inspector Lalit Mahant filed an application (Ext.PW-3/A) for obtaining the date of birth certificate of the victim from the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jahlma and obtained the birth certificate (Ext.PW-3/B). He filed an application (Ext.PW-4/A) for obtaining a copy of the Attendance Register and obtained the Register (Ext.PW-4/B). He filed an application for recording the statement of the victim. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., recorded the victim’s statement. The statements of witnesses were recorded
