Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Convictions for Assault in Land Dispute Case, Citing Eyewitness and Medical Evidence

08 October 2024 7:02 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions of Kamal Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Bhagat Ram, and Rakesh Kumar in a 1997 assault case arising from a land dispute. The court reaffirmed the decision of the Sessions Court, which sentenced Kamal Singh and Kuldeep Singh to two years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed fines on Bhagat Ram and Rakesh Kumar. The court relied heavily on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence to support the convictions, rejecting the defense's claim of a land ownership dispute.

The altercation occurred on September 27, 1997, when Satish Kumar, the informant, was driving a tractor near his home in Haroli village, Himachal Pradesh. The accused—Kamal Singh and Kuldeep Singh, armed with pickaxes, along with Bhagat Ram and Rakesh Kumar—blocked his path. The dispute allegedly stemmed from Bhagat Ram encroaching on government land adjacent to the informant’s property.

As Satish attempted to pass through what he described as a common passage, the accused threatened him. Kamal Singh and Kuldeep Singh struck Satish on the head with pickaxes, causing severe injuries. Bhagat Ram and Rakesh Kumar further assaulted him with kicks and fists. His parents, alerted by his cries, intervened and rescued him. A police report was filed immediately, and medical examinations confirmed that Satish had sustained grievous injuries to the head, including a palpable skull fracture.

The trial court had initially acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence. However, the Sessions Court overturned the acquittal in 2009, based on the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the medical reports indicating injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons.

The key legal question was whether the evidence—particularly the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the medical reports—was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty of assault. The defense claimed that the injuries were caused by an unrelated tractor accident and argued that the land in question belonged to Bhagat Ram, making Satish the aggressor.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, however, found these arguments unconvincing. It ruled that the injuries were consistent with the use of sharp weapons, as confirmed by medical experts. The court also dismissed the claim that Satish was trespassing, affirming that the incident occurred on a public path regularly used by villagers. The High Court emphasized that the minor contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses did not undermine their overall credibility.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, delivering the judgment, highlighted the importance of medical evidence in corroborating the severity of the injuries inflicted on Satish. The court noted that the presence of blood-stained leaves at the scene, along with pickaxes recovered by the police, further supported the prosecution's case.

The court found that the injuries on Satish’s head could not have been caused by a mere fall from a tractor, as the defense argued, but were the result of deliberate blows with sharp weapons. The medical expert testified that the wounds were deep, with brain tissue exposed, consistent with the use of pickaxes.

The court also reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction is not a re-evaluation of evidence but is meant to address legal errors or jurisdictional defects. It upheld the appellate court's decision to convict the accused, noting that the trial court had erred in dismissing the medical evidence and eyewitness accounts.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions of Kamal Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Bhagat Ram, and Rakesh Kumar for their roles in the violent assault. The court ruled that the defense failed to provide sufficient grounds for overturning the convictions, citing the consistency of the prosecution's evidence. The accused were ordered to serve their sentences, with Kamal Singh and Kuldeep Singh receiving two years of rigorous imprisonment, while Bhagat Ram and Rakesh Kumar were fined.

Date of decision: 26/09/2024

Kamal Singh & Ors. vs. State of H.P.​.

Latest Legal News