Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC, concluding that the victim’s wound and the torn condition of his clothes negated the accused’s assertion that the injury was caused by an accidental fall. The Court noted that medical findings and forensic analysis consistently indicated that the shoulder injury was the result of a blow from a sharp-edged weapon, leaving no scope for the theory of an unintended mishap. The Bench found the evidence sufficient to sustain the Trial Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

The prosecution alleged that the victim was travelling with his spouse to a nearby village on the morning of 02.02.2007 to extend an invitation when he encountered the accused, who was carrying a sharp-edged implement. It was asserted that soon after a brief exchange of greetings, the accused struck the victim with the weapon, causing an injury on the shoulder. The victim raised an alarm, after which bystanders arrived, and the accused left the location. The victim was then taken for medical treatment, and the police recorded his statement on the same day.

Also Read: Limitation For Challenging Environmental Clearance Begins From Earliest Public Disclosure: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Over Mining EC

During investigation, the police visited the scene, collected soil and clothing stained with blood, prepared a site plan, and later received a weapon produced in the presence of witnesses. The medical officer documented an incised wound with cut muscles and noted that the clothing was also torn. Forensic analysis reported human blood on the articles examined.

The accused denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and did not produce defence evidence. He contended that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and that the injury could have resulted from a fall. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, medical findings, forensic reports, and recovery of the weapon to support the charge under Section 324 IPC.

The Court recorded that the victim’s testimony remained consistent and that there was “nothing suggested to him in the cross-examination as to why he should be deposing falsely against the accused.” It referred to the Supreme Court’s principle in Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that “the testimony of the injured witness has to be accepted as correct unless there are compelling circumstances to doubt such a statement.”

Addressing the medical evidence, the Court stated that the medical officer found “an incised wound with clean cut margins… underlying muscles cut… fresh bleeding was present” and that the injury “could not have been caused by a fall.” This supported the prosecution’s account regarding the sharp-edged weapon.

The Court recorded that the victim’s wife was mentioned in the FIR and concluded that “their being together is not unnatural.” Kamla Devi’s inconsistent statements were examined, and the Court stated that her cross-examination had “impeached her credit” under Section 155(3) of the Evidence Act.

On related witnesses, the Court quoted the Supreme Court principle that “a related witness cannot be said to be an ‘interested’ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.”

With respect to contemporaneous disclosures, the Court held that the statements to Neeraj (PW4) and Ram Krishan (PW3) formed part of the same transaction and were admissible under Section 6, referencing that such statements must be “substantially contemporaneous with the facts and not merely the narrative of a past.”

On the recovery of the darat, the Court noted the victim’s confirmation that the accused produced the weapon and said there was “no reason to disbelieve his testimony.” It also recorded that traces of blood were found on the darat. The Court observed that these materials “duly established” the use of the weapon during the assault.

Also Read: Mother’s Pension Not Sustainable Livelihood: HP High Court Allows Eviction, Upholds Landlord’s Right To Use Own Commercial Premises

The Court recorded that the “learned Trial Court has convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and not 307 of IPC” and that this aspect required no further deliberation in the appeal. The medical evidence had “ruled out the possibility suggested to the victim that he had sustained injury by way of a fall.”

The Court held that the victim’s account, medical findings, and supporting evidence “clearly show that the clothes were also cut during the incident,” and that this “would rule out the possibility of sustaining injury by way of a fall.” The testimony and material on record “duly established that the accused had used the Darat to cause injury to the informant/victim.”

The Court directed: “Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held the accused guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, pay a fine of ₹2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months.”

“In the present case, the accused had inflicted injuries by means of a sharp-edged weapon on the shoulder without any reason. This injury was stated to be dangerous to life. The fact that the injuries were inflicted without any reason makes the offence more serious, and the punishment of two years cannot be said to be excessive; hence, there is no reason to interfere with it. The present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Vipin Rajta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Case Title: Jagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:34228
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 459 of 2010
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla