Ashwani Kumar Vs State

¶1

2025:HHC:44349

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 2013 Reserved on: 27.11.2025 Decided on: 18.12.2025

¶4

Ashwani Kumar ...…. Appellant Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the Appellant : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced as under: -

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes.

2

2025:HHC:44349

Sections Sentences

326 of IPC Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶15

452 of IPC Accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months’, pay a fine of ₹2500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

¶16

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

¶17

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

¶18

appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Prem Singh (PW-1), was running a shop at village Bum. He reached home after closing his shop on 12.03.2007 at about 8:30 p.m. His wife Nirmla and Jagdish Chand (PW-2) were present at home. The informant went to the courtyard after

¶19

3

¶20

2025:HHC:44349

¶21

changing clothes. The accused, Ashwani Kumar, came to the informant’s house armed with a Darat like a Khukri at about 9:00 p.m, and inflicted a blow on the informant’s right eye. The accused inflicted another blow, but the informant tried to ward off the blow with his right hand. His index finger was chopped off. The accused inflicted a third blow on the informant’s head. The informant shouted for help. Nirmla Devi and Jagdish Chand (PW-2) came out. The accused inflicted a blow on the head of Jagdish. Villagers gathered on the spot after hearing the noise. The injured were taken to the hospital. The informant and the accused were litigating with each other, and their relationship was strained. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW-21/A) was recorded. SHO Duglu Ram (PW-24) went to the hospital to verify the correctness of the information He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW-1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-20/C) was registered. Dr Kamlesh Sharma (PW-19) examined Jagdish Chand (PW-2) and found a sharp cutting wound on the right side of the temporal region. The nature of the injury was grievous, caused by a sharp-edged weapon, within six hours of the examination; however, it was not dangerous to life. He issued

¶22

4

¶23

2025:HHC:44349

¶24

MLC (Ext.PW-17/C). He also examined Prem Singh (PW-1) and found a chopped right index finger and a clean, sharp wound on the right side of the forehead. He advised an X-ray. As per the radiological opinion, the injuries were found to be grievous, which could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon within six hours of the examination. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-17/D). The nature of the injury suffered by Prem Singh (PW-1) was dangerous to life. The accused had also sustained injuries. Duglu Ram (PW-24) moved an application (Ext.PW-8/A) for his examination. Dr Bharti (PW-8) medically examined the accused and found that he had sustained a lacerated wound on the index finger. The nature of the injury was simple and could have been caused within three hours of the examination. She issued MLC (Ext.PW-8/B). The accused produced a blood-stained under vest, which was sealed in a parcel with seal ‘H’ and seized vide memo (Ext.PW-12/A). Duglu Ram (PW-24) went to the spot and prepared site plan (Ext.PW-24/B). Jagdish Chand (PW-2) produced his bloodstained shirt (Ext.P6) and shawl (Ext.P7), which were sealed in a parcel with seal ‘H’ and seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/B). Brahmi Devi (PW-23) produced one Toka (Darat), which she had snatched from the accused. Sketch (Ext.PW-4/A) was

¶25

5

¶26

2025:HHC:44349

¶27

prepared. Toka (Darat) was put in a cloth parcel and seized vide memo (Ext.PW-4/B). Jagdish Chand (PW-2) produced a shirt (Ext.P2) and a pyjama (Ext.P-3) of Prem Singh, which were sealed in a parcel with seal ‘T’, and the parcel was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/A). The amputated finger of Prem Singh (PW-1) was found on the spot, which was sent to the Hospital, but the Doctor said that it could not be joined. The piece of finger was preserved in a bottle (Ext.P4) and seized vide memo. (Ext.PW-2/C). Duglu Ram (PW-24) obtained the case summary (Ext.PW-9/A). The case property was sent to FSL, and reports (Ext.PW-24/K and Ext.PW-24/M) were issued stating that the shirt and shawl of Jagdish Chand (PW-2), the shirt and pyjama of Prem Singh (PW-1), and the under vest of the accused Ashwani Kumar had human blood, but the blood group could not be identified. The traces of blood were found on Darat and the finger, but these were insufficient for further tests. The shawl was examined under the microscope, and it was found that the cut mark on it could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like Toka. The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

¶28

6

¶29

2025:HHC:44349

¶30

Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326 and 307 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶31

The prosecution examined 24 witnesses to prove its case. Prem Singh (PW-1) is the informant. Jagdish Chand (PW-2) is the victim/eyewitness. Besria Ram (PW-3), Bansi Ram (PW-4), Dila Ram (PW-5), Neelam Devi (PW-6), Sanjeev Kumar (PW-13) and Brahmi Devi (PW-23) did not support the prosecution’s case. Dr D Bhangal (PW-7) issued a report (Ext.PW-7/A). Dr Bharti (PW-8) medically examined the accused. Dr Amarjeet Singh (PW-9) treated the informant and issued the case summary. Dr Bhanu Kanwar (PW-10) took the blood samples of victim Jagdish Chand and Accused Ashwani Kumar. Arun Kumar (PW-11), Radiographer, took the informant’s X-ray. Prem Lal (PW-12), Sanjeev Kumar (PW-13), and HHC Tirth Raj (PW-14) are the witnesses to the recoveries. HHC Baldev Singh (PW-15) carried the samples of blood from the hospital to the Police Station. HHC Gian Chand (PW-16) carried the case property to FSL. SI Bhoop Singh (PW-17) filed an application seeking an opinion about the victim’s fitness to make the statement. ASI Mulkh Raj

¶32

7

¶33

2025:HHC:44349

¶34

(PW-18) proved the F.I.R. Dr Kamesh Sharma (PW-19) medically examined the victims. ASI Raj Kumar (PW-20) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HC Vinod Kumar (PW-21) proved the entry in the daily diary. SI Tilak Chand (PW-22) obtained the opinion of the Medical Officer. Duglu Ram (PW-24) investigated the matter.

¶35

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that he was falsely implicated to spoil his character. Informant Prem Singh wants to grab his land. Prem Singh (PW-1) and Jagdish Chand (PW-2) used to fight each other. They had quarrelled on the date of the incident. The father of the accused told him about the quarrel and asked him to intervene. He went outside and saw that Prem Singh and Jagdish Chand were fighting. Jagdish Chand (PW-2) noticed the accused and got angry. Jagdish Chand (PW-2) attacked. He informed Pardhan, who advised him to make a report to the police. He examined Suman Kumar (DW-1) and also tendered the documents in evidence.

¶36

Learned Trial Court held that the informant’s testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and

¶37

8

¶38

2025:HHC:44349

¶39

statements of eyewitnesses. The accused never disputed his presence on the spot and specifically stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he went to the spot after his father advised him to intervene in the quarrel between the informant and his brother. The weapon of offence contained the blood stains, which corroborated the informant’s version that it was used to cause injuries. The injuries were caused on the index finger, the right side of the face and the right side of the forehead. The intention to cause death could not be gathered from the nature of the injuries; however, a sharp-edged weapon was used to cause grievous hurt. Therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

¶40

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed

¶41

by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record. The statements of the informant and eyewitnesses contradicted each other. The prosecution’s case is self-destructive. Learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material placed on record. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the

¶42

9

¶43

2025:HHC:44349

¶44

judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶45

I have heard Mr Nitin Thakur, learned Counsel for

¶46

the appellant/accused and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

¶47

Mr Nitin Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material placed before it. The statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. The injury could not have been caused to the index finger while trying to ward off a blow. The defence version that the informant and his brother used to quarrel and Jagdish Chand caused injury to the accused was made probable by the defence evidence. Learned Trial Court erred in discarding this version. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶48

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence. The testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by the

¶49

10

¶50

2025:HHC:44349

¶51

statements of the witnesses, medical evidence, and promptly lodged F.I.R. Learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, and no interference is required with the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

¶52

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶53

The informant specifically stated that the accused attacked him with Darat on the right side of his head. The accused again gave a Darat blow, and he (the accused) defended himself with his right hand, causing the amputation of the index finger. The accused gave a third blow to the right eye. His testimony does not explain how the index finger could have been chopped off while trying to ward off Darat. The little finger, palmar or dorsal aspect of the hand, would have been exposed to Darat while defending, and in all the situations, the index finger could not be chopped off.

¶54

The informant identified Darat (Ext.P-1) as the weapon used by the accused to inflict injuries; however, sketch (Ext.PW-4/A) does not show that it was a Darat. It has been

¶55

11

¶56

2025:HHC:44349

¶57

described as Toka in the evidence and is like a chopper knife. Darat, on the other hand, has a semi-circular curve, which distinguishes it from other weapons. Therefore, the informant’s version that the accused had used a Darat to inflict the injuries on him is not supported by the recovery of so called Darat (Ext.P-1).

¶58

The informant, Prem Singh (PW-1), stated that he informed Up-Pardhan and narrated the entire incident to him. He went to Ghumarwin for treatment with Up Pardhan. Up Pardhan had informed the Police Station.

¶59

Besaria Ram (PW-3) stated that he was UpPardhan of Gram Panchayat Bum in the year 2007. Prem Singh (PW-1) and Jagdish Chand (PW-2) came to his shop on 12.03.2007 at about 8:30 p.m. Prem Singh had caught his finger with his hand and told that his finger had been amputated while he was cutting the fish. The informant asked him (Besaria Ram) to take him to the hospital. He thought that the brothers might have quarrelled with each other. He informed the police, and the police told him that they did not have any vehicle. He carried the injured to the hospital and returned. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He denied

¶60

12

¶61

2025:HHC:44349

¶62

that Prem Singh and Jagdish Chand went to his residence, and they were injured. He denied that Prem Singh had told him about the infliction of injuries by Ashwani Kumar (accused). He denied his previous statement recorded by the police. He stated in his cross-examination that his shop was located at a busy place. Prem Singh (PW-1), Jagdish Chand (PW-2) and other villagers used to purchase Karyana items from his shop. Prem Chand and Jagdish Chand used to quarrel with each other. Jagdish Chand sold his share to Prem Lal (PW-12). Both brothers had filed a suit against Prem Lal (PW-12), which is pending before the Civil Court.

¶63

The testimony of this witness does not support the informant’s version; rather, he has stated that the informant told him that his finger was amputated while cutting the fish. Thus, his testimony does not provide any corroborate the informant’s testimony.

¶64

Dr Kamesh Sharma (PW-19) admitted in his crossexamination that injury No.1 was possible while cutting the fish. Thus, the medical evidence also corroborates the version of Besaria Ram (PW-3) that the injury could be sustained while cutting the fish.

¶65

13

¶66

2025:HHC:44349

¶67

Duglu Ram (PW-24) investigated the matter. He recovered the amputated finger from the courtyard vide memo (Ext.PW2/C). His statement and memo are silent regarding the blood stains in the courtyard. He had recovered blood-stained clothes of the victim, which were sent to FSL and human blood was found in them. Dr Kamlesh Sharma (PW-19) also noticed the blood coming out of the wounds of Jagdish Chand (PW-2) and Prem Singh (PW-1), which also suggests that wounds were bleeding; therefore, the absence of blood in the courtyard where the incident is stated to have taken place would make the prosecution’s case suspect.

¶68

The informant stated that he shouted for help, on which his wife, his mother and his brother Jagdish Chand (PW-2) came out. Nirmla Devi, wife of the complainant and Karodhu Devi, mother of the complainant, were given up being repetitive; therefore, there is no corroboration to the informant’s testimony that injuries were caused in their presence.

¶69

The police recovered a blood-stained undervest of the accused. It was submitted that the blood stained undervest corroborates the informant’s version that the accused had

¶70

14

¶71

2025:HHC:44349

¶72

inflicted the injuries on the informant, and his clothes were stained with blood in the process. This submission cannot be accepted. The accused was medically examined by Dr Bharti (PW-8), who found that he was bleeding from the right index finger with clotted blood and fresh blood over the hand. Thus, the accused had sustained bleeding injuries, and his clothes getting stained with blood was normal. Thus, not much advantage can be derived from the blood-stained clothes of the accused.

¶73

The police relied upon the recovery of Toka (Darat)

¶74

(Ext.P1) from Brahmi Devi (PW-23); however, she did not

¶75

support the prosecution’s case. She denied that she had snatched the Kukhri (Toka) from the accused. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied that the accused quarrelled with Prem Singh (PW-1) and his brother. She denied that the accused had inflicted injuries on them by means of a Darat (Toka). She denied that she had snatched the Darat (Toka) from the accused and subsequently produced it before the police. She denied her previous statement recorded by the police. Thus, it is apparent that she has not corroborated the prosecution’s version regarding the use of the Darat (Toka) by the accused.

¶76

15

¶77

2025:HHC:44349

¶78

Sanjiv Kumar (PW-13) witnessed the recovery of Darat. He denied that Brahmi Devi had produced any Darat. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He denied that Brahmi Devi produced one Darat and claimed that she had snatched it from the accused. He denied that the police sealed the Darat in a parcel. He stated in his cross-examination that the Darat and the amputated finger were produced by Karodhu Devi, mother of Jagdish Chand and Prem Singh.

¶79

The testimony of this witness does not establish the prosecution’s case. He categorically denied that Brahmi Devi (PW-23) had produced the Darat; rather, he stated that Karodhu Devi had produced the Darat. Thus, no advantage can be derived from his testimony.

¶80

Bansi Ram (PW-4) is another witness to the recovery. He stated that Brahmi Devi was called from her house, and her signatures were obtained. The amputated finger was produced by Jagdish Chand, and Darat was produced by Karodhu Devi. He was permitted to be crossexamined. He denied that Brahmi Devi had produced Darat in his presence. He admitted that he had signed the memo, vide which the Darat was seized. He denied his previous statement

¶81

16

¶82

2025:HHC:44349

¶83

recorded by the Police. He stated in his cross-examination that Prem Singh wanted to grab the vacant plot of the accused, and they had a strained relationship.

¶84

The testimony of this witness also does not prove that Darat was snatched from the accused by Brahmi Devi, who had produced it before the police. Thus, recovery of Darat has not been proved by an independent witness.

¶85

Neelam Devi (PW-6) had reached the spot after the incident, as per the prosecution. She did not support the prosecution’s case. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied that she heard the cries from the house of Prem Singh. She denied that she went to the house and saw Jagdish Chand standing on the retaining wall with blood-stained clothes. She denied that Jagdish Chand told her that the accused had inflicted the injuries. She denied the previous statement recorded by the police. She stated in her crossexamination by the learned counsel of the defence that she had cordial relations with the family of Perm Singh. This witness has also not corroborated the prosecution’s version regarding the scuffle between the accused and the informant, and not much advantage can be derived from her testimony.

¶86

17

¶87

2025:HHC:44349

¶88

The informant stated that he took a bath and came

¶89

out of his house at 9:00 p.m. The accused came to the courtyard armed with a Darat. The accused attacked him with darat on the right side of his head above his eye. The accused inflicted another blow, and he defended it with his right hand. The index finger was amputated. The accused inflicted a third blow below the right eye. He raised the alarm, but the accused fled away. His wife, his mother and brother Jagdish Chand came to the spot. Jagdish Chand (PW-2) tried to rescue him from the accused, but the accused also hit him with a Darat. Many people came to the spot.

¶90

The testimony of this witness is inherently contradictory. He stated that he raised an alarm, and the accused fled. His wife, mother and brother came after hearing the alarm. Thus, the informant’s brother could not have a scuffle with the accused because, as per him, the accused had already fled away from the spot.

¶91

Jagdish Chand (PW-2) stated that the accused came to the courtyard armed with a Darat and inflicted the blow of the Darat upon the informant. When the informant tried to defend himself, the accused inflicted another blow, and the

¶92

18

¶93

2025:HHC:44349

¶94

informant’s index finger was amputated. He heard the cries of his brother and came out of the house. He tried to rescue his brother and was given a blow to the right side of his head. His mother and the informant’s wife also came out after hearing the noise. He had covered his head with a shawl, which was also cut. The accused fled from the spot.

¶95

The testimony of this witness shows that he had narrated the facts which had not taken place in his presence. He stated that he was sleeping and came out when the informant raised a hue and cry. Thus, he could not have witnessed the genesis of the incident, namely, the accused coming to the courtyard, inflicting injury on the informant’s head and index finger. He stated in his cross-examination that he did not have a cordial relationship with the accused for the last 10 years. Sapna, the informant’s daughter, had filed a criminal case under Section 354 of the IPC against the accused. He clarified that the accused gave a blow with a Darat to the informant in his presence, which had cut the finger of his brother. Geeta Devi, wife of Amar Singh, also reached the spot.

¶96

The statement of this witness makes the sequence of events narrated by the informant doubtful because, as per

¶97

19

¶98

2025:HHC:44349

¶99

the informant, the first blow was given by the accused on the right side of the head. Second blow was given on the hand, causing amputation of the index finger, and the third blow as given to the right eye. As per Jagdish Chand (PW-2), only one blow was given in his presence, which caused the amputation of the finger. Thus, the informant’s testimony that a blow was given to the right eye after the amputation of the finger is not supported by Jagdish Chand.

¶100

There is no other witness to corroborate the testimonies of the informant and the victim. The statements of the informant and the victim are mutually contradictory, as noticed above, and it is difficult to rely upon them.

¶101

Thus, the prosecution’s case is inherently improbable because the amputation of the index finger while trying to ward off the blow from Darat is not explained. The weapon of offence was changed from Darat to Khukhrinuma Darat and ultimately to Toka. No blood stains were found on the spot when amputation had taken place, even though he was heavily bleeding. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case, and Up Pardhan, to whom the incident was narrated, stated before the Court that the informant’s

¶102

20

¶103

2025:HHC:44349

¶104

finger was chopped while cutting the fish. The recovery of Darat from Brahmi Devi (PW-23) has not established. The witnesses stated that the Darat was produced by the informant’s mother. The relationship between the parties is admittedly strained. All these facts would make the prosecution’s case highly suspect.

¶105

Learned Trial Court did not advert to these factors and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused; hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable.

¶106

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are ordered to be set aside, and the accused is acquitted of the charged offences. The fine amount, if deposited by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation in case of no further appeal, and in case of appeal, it shall be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶107

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the appellant is directed to furnish

¶108

21

¶109

2025:HHC:44349

¶110

bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court which shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶111

The present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶112

A copy of the judgment, along with record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.

¶113

(Rakesh Kainthla) 18^th December, 2025. Judge (ravinder)

Ashwani Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

Ashwani Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs State

State of Hp Vs Sandeep Kumar

Lal Deen and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Joginder Singh Vs State of Hp

Surjit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Yadav Singh Vs State of Hp