Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Meena Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 4078 of 2013

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Tamanna Sharma
For the Respondents: Prashant Sen

In criminal revision, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court; interference is limited to patent defects, errors of jurisdiction/law, or perversity. (Paras 13-15)

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Section 397 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 506 - Revision against conviction - Scope of revisional jurisdiction is extremely narrow; it cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; it can only rectify patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, and not re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity. (Paras 13-17)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 illustration (g) - Adverse inference - No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution for failure to collect evidence (e.g., blood-stained clothes or recovery of weapons) unless evidence was withheld; defective investigation is not a ground to acquit the accused. (Paras 41-46)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 149 - Vicarious liability - To attract Section 149, prosecution must prove that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly and was within the knowledge of other members; presence together, being armed with sticks and beating the informant party established common object to cause hurt/grievous hurt. (Paras 53-54)

Facts of the case:
The informant was returning home on 31.03.2004 and found stones and wood blocking the public passage near the accused’s house. On requesting removal, the accused gathered on the spot and beat the informant and his family members with sticks and a bat, causing simple and grievous injuries (including a fracture of the right fibula). The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 323, 325 read with Section 149 IPC (sentences ranging from six months to one year, to run concurrently). The Appellate Court upheld the conviction. The accused filed the present revision.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that both Courts below had concurrently appreciated the evidence and found it credible. The witnesses were injured and their presence on the spot could not be doubted. Medical evidence corroborated their testimonies. Minor discrepancies in the time of arrival or exact sequence did not shake the core of the prosecution case. Enmity was a double-edged weapon and not a ground to discard the prosecution version. The defence version (that a function was going on and the accused were acting in private defence) was not proved. Defective investigation (non-seizure of blood-stained clothes or all weapons) did not vitiate the trial. The sentence was proportionate and not excessive.

Issues: The main issues were whether the revisional court could re-appreciate evidence and whether the concurrent findings of conviction suffered from any patent defect, error of jurisdiction or law, or perversity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The testimonies of injured witnesses are entitled to great weight and cannot be discarded without compelling reasons. Minor contradictions due to lapse of memory do not make a prosecution case doubtful. Failure to seize all weapons or blood-stained clothes is a defect in investigation, not a ground to acquit.

Result: Revision dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:20684

Cr. Revision No. 4078 of 2013

Reserved on: 02.04.2026

Date of Decision: 01.06.2026.

Meena Devi & others ...Petitioner Versus

State of H.P. r ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1 Yes

For the P etitioners : Mr Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior h Advocate, with Ms Tamanna Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur District, Bilaspur H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2009 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (learned Trial Court) were upheld.

(The parties shall hereinafter be to in the same manner as they were arrayed in before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPuC). It was asserted that the informant Sewa Dass (PW7) waos returning to his home in the evening on 31.03.2004C. He found that stones and wood were kept on the road near the house of the accused, Brij Lal. The informant requested the accused, Brij Lal to remove the stones and the wood because these were obstructing the public passage. The accused Brij Lal, HBaldev Raj, Dina Nath, Ramesh Chand, Anup, Anish Kumar, Kanta Devi, and Meena Devi gathered on the spot and told the informant that the dispute was pending before the Court, and the informant could do whatever he liked. The informant told the accused that everyone had a right to use the public passage. The accused got infuriated and started beating the informant with sticks. Bimla Devi (PW1), Kishori Lal (PW2) and Bimla Devi (PW8) reached the spot after hearing the cries. The accused also gave beatings to them. Munshi Ram, Pawna Kumari (PW5), Gian Chand and Vidya Devi (PW6) reached the spot. The accused threate.ned to kill the informant and his family members. The matter was reported to the police, who registered an FIR (Ext.PWf1/A). Amar Chand (PW9) filed an application (Ext.PW3/A) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. tDr Bharti Ranout (PW3) examined Sewa Dass and found multiple injuries on his person. She advised X-rays. Dr D. Bhangal (PW4) went through the X-ray and found a fracture on the right fibula. Dr Bharti Ranout (PW3) issued the MLC (Ext.PW3/B1), mentioning that the injuries were simple and grievous in nature. Dr Bharti Ranout (PW3) also examined Kishori Lal (PW2), Bimla Devi (PW1) and Bimla Devi (PW8) and found that they had sustained simple injuries. She issued the MLCs (Ext.PW3/B2, Ext. PW3/B3 and Ext. PW3/B4). ASI Mulak Raj (PW13) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW13/A). Sarwan Singh (PW12) arrested the accused. Brij Lal produced a bat which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW10/A). Meena Devi produced a stick, which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW10/B). The 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. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, 506, 147 and 149 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimeud to be tried. Subsequently, the charge was amended to incloude Section 325 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded noCt guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Bimla Devi (PW1), Kishori Lal (PW2), Pawana Kumari (PW5), Vidya Devi (PW6), and Bim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JMeena Devi – AppellantVersusState of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr. Revision No. 4078 of 2013

In criminal revision, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court; interference is limited to patent defects, errors of jurisdiction/law, or perversity. (Paras 13-15)

Cases Referred (21)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Meena Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 4078 of 2013