PURAN CHAND vs STATE OF HP - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3089

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354 and 323 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of interference by High Court in criminal revision - Concurrent findings of fact - Delay in lodging FIR in sexual assault cases - Minor contradictions in witness testimony - Medical evidence corroborating informant’s version - Hands as blunt weapon - Probation not granted for offences against women.

(B) Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC is supervisory in nature and not to be equated with appellate power. The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. (Paras 13-17)

(C) Delay in reporting a sexual assault is not fatal; victims often consult family before lodging FIR due to social stigma. Minor discrepancies due to lapse of time do not shake the core of the prosecution case. (Paras 23-27)

Facts of the case:
On 3.7.2006, the informant (victim) was grazing cattle when the accused caught hold of her breasts, tried to break the drawstring of her salwar, and threatened to throw her into a gorge. She shouted, Leelawati (PW3) came, and the accused fled. The victim narrated the incident to her husband and reported it to the police the next day. Medical examination revealed deep tenderness over both breasts. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 354 and 323 IPC, sentencing him to six months and three months simple imprisonment respectively. The appellate court upheld the conviction. The accused filed a revision.

Findings of Court:
The statements of the informant and Leelawati were credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The minor contradiction regarding Leelawati’s distance did not affect the case. The delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained. The defence of land dispute was not proved. The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was denied as the offence was heinous and against a woman alone in a secluded place. The sentence was not excessive.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction should interfere with concurrent findings of fact. (Para 13-17) 2. Whether the delay in lodging FIR and minor contradictions discredit the prosecution case. (Paras 23-27) 3. Whether the accused is entitled to probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. (Paras 30-33)

Ratio Decidendi: The revisional court cannot upset concurrent findings unless perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution case was consistent and corroborated. Delay in sexual assault cases is not fatal. Probation is not granted for offences outraging modesty where the accused took advantage of the victim’s isolation.

Result: Revision petition dismissed. (Para 35)

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Revision against conviction under Sections 354 and 323 IPC for outraging modesty and causing hurt. (Para 2 )

2. Petitioner argued errors in appreciation, contradictions, medical evidence, delay, and probation entitlement. Respondent argued no false accusation and corroboration. (Para 10 , 11 )

3. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC?

Revisional court can only rectify patent defect, error of jurisdiction or law; cannot reappreciate evidence unless perversity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )

4. Can delay in lodging FIR be a ground to discard prosecution case in sexual assault?

Delay in sexual assault cases cannot be equated with other offences; it is not material if properly explained. (Para 26 , 27 )

5. How should minor contradictions in witness testimony be treated?

Minor contradictions due to lapse of time do not discard prosecution case unless they shake core of testimony. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )

6. Can hands be considered a blunt weapon for medical evidence?

Yes, hands are a blunt weapon; catching hold of breasts can cause injuries consistent with blunt force. (Para 25 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:21947

Cr. Revision No. 212 of 2014

Reserved on: 30.4.2026

Date of Decision: 5.6.2026.

Puran Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

Yes.

For the Petitioner : Mr S.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Arvind Negi, Advocate.

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

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2009 and order of sentence dated 20.8.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court)¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. were upheld.

(The 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 offences punishable under Section 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant (name being withheld to protect her identity) was grazing her cattle on 3.7.2006. Accused Puran Chand came to the spot and caught hold of her br easts. He tried to break the drawstring of her salwar and threatened her. He told her to agree to his demand, or he would throw her into the gorge. The informant shouted for help, and Leelawati (PW3) enquired as to what the accused was trying to do. The accused left the informant, and the informant ran towards the Leelawati. The accused followed her, and the informant pelted stones towards the accused. The accused went away from the spot. The informant narrated the incident to her husband, who advised her to report the matter to the police. The informant and her husband went to the Police Post, Mashobra, where an entry (Ex.PW4/A) was made, which was sent to the Police Station, where an FIR (Ex.PW4/B) was registered. ASI Hukam Singh (PW7) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/A). He found the broken pieces of bangles lying on the spot. He picked them up and put them in a cloth parcel. He sealed the parcel with seal ‘H’. He obtained the sample seal (Ex.PW7/B) on a separate piece of cloth and seized the parcel vide memo (Ex.PW1/A). Dr Lalita Negi (PW6) examined the victim and found deep tenderness over both breasts. The nature of the injury was simple, which could have been caused by a blunt weapon within 48 hours of the examination. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW6/B). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, the learned Trial Court charged him with the commission of offences punishable under Section 354 and 323 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. Informant (PW1) narrated the incident. Her husband (PW2) accompanied her to the Police Post. Leelawati (PW3) is an eyewitness. SHO Vijjay Kumar (PW4) signed the FIR. Constable Ranjeet Singh (PW5) proved the entery in the daily diary. Dr Lalita Negi (PW6) mediclaly examined the informant. ASI Hukam Singh (PW7) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), denied the prosecution's case in its entirey. He stated that a false case was made against him due to enmity over the land. The informant's husband is a politicly influential person, and he used his influence to falsly implicate him. The accuse

Sentencing order table

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
PURAN CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/212/2014

In criminal revision, concurrent findings of fact cannot be reappreciated unless perverse. Delay in reporting sexual assault and minor contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution case. Probation not granted for outraging modesty.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC?

4. Can delay in lodging FIR be a ground to discard prosecution case in sexual assault?

5. How should minor contradictions in witness testimony be treated?

6. Can hands be considered a blunt weapon for medical evidence?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLAPURAN CHAND – AppellantVersusSTATE OF HP – RespondentCR.R/212/2014

In criminal revision, concurrent findings of fact cannot be reappreciated unless perverse. Delay in reporting sexual assault and minor contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution case. Probation not granted for outraging modesty.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC?

4. Can delay in lodging FIR be a ground to discard prosecution case in sexual assault?

5. How should minor contradictions in witness testimony be treated?

6. Can hands be considered a blunt weapon for medical evidence?

Cases Referred (15)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
PURAN CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/212/2014