High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 06 SHI CK 0018

Om Parkash & ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 18 June 2018 · Citation: (2018) 2 SimLC 1103

HON’BLE JUDGES
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Cr. Revision No.40 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

27 paragraphs · 365 words

Offence,Sentence

Under Section 451 IPC,"Simple imprisonment for three months each and to

pay fine of `500/- each and in case of default to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month each;

Undre Section 323 IPC,"Simple imprisonment for three months each and to

pay a fine of `500/- each and in case of default

further to undergo simple imprisonment for one

month each;

Under Section 504 IPC,"Simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay

a fine of `100/- each and in case of default further to

undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each;

Under Section 506 IPC,"Simple imprisonment for three months each and to

pay a fine of `500/- each and in case of default to

further undergo simple imprisonment for one month

each. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

before the police, he has stated that his mother was also beaten up, but while appearing in the witness box, he has not stated so. Though, Balwant",

Singh and Sunita Devi were examined, but they had not supported the prosecution case. Statement of PW-1, Subhash Chand, if read in totality",

doesn’t make out a case against the accused persons. Further, his statement is not trustworthy and remained uncorroborated by independent",

witnesses. Further, the improvement made by PW-1, in his statement while appearing in the witness box before the learned Court below also makes",

its statement untrustworthy. The non-examination of other independent witnesses also creates a doubt in the prosecution story.,

8.

The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons conclusively and beyond the,

shadow of reasonable doubt. So, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned Court below convicting and sentencing the accused persons",

are liable to be set aside.,

9.

Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is allowed and the judgment, dated 15.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi,",

District Mandi, affirming the judgment dated 13.6.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath camp at Jogindernagar, District",

Mandi, is set aside.",

10.      In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.",