Mani Ram Vs State of Hp

For the Respondent : Mr. I.N. Mehta and Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶14

The applicant-appellant has filed the instant application for suspension of sentence.

¶15

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant-appellant along with two other accused persons

¶16

2

¶17

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶18

namely Rajesh Kumar and Mahender Kumar was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan,H.P. for having committed offence under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) in case FIR No. 124/2020 dated 25.10.2020, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.

¶19

The case of the prosecution as unfolded during the investigation is that the applicant-appellant was HHC with the Special Narcotic Control Cell (Field Unit) of CID at Shimla. Pursuant to D.D. entry No.5 dated 09.10.2020 of CID, Shimla, he was grouped with HASI Balak Ram and deputed for field duty in District Solan. Rajesh Kumar and Mahender Kumar (other arrayed accused) were the police informers and had been assisting the applicant-appellant in providing information to him.

¶20

On 22.10.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant Shri Kuldeep Kumar, who was a student of 10+2 standard in Government Senior Secondary School, Subathu and his friends Naresh Kumar, Dalip and Lakshit alias Lucky were in Haripur School Ground and were going to attend a marriage party. Suddenly, a Kwid Car bearing registration No. HP-64A-1063 came in the school ground. The applicant-

¶21

3

¶22

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶23

appellant and other accused persons were the occupants of the aforesaid car and after stopping their vehicle in the ground, they allegedly came out and went right up to those boys and allegedly accused them that they were habitual of taking ‘chitta’ (heroin) and ‘bhang’ (cannabis). The accusation was refuted by the complainant and his friends. Naresh Kumar asked the applicant-appellant and other accused persons that they could get them medically examined for verifying the consumption of any drug and it was alleged that at that moment, the applicant-appellant caught hold of Naresh Kumar from his neck and also slapped him and warned the boys that they should not be seen in the school ground in future.

¶24

It is further the case of the prosecution that on 24.10.2020, the complainant Kuldeep Kumar had come to the house of his uncle Siri Ram and at about 6.00 p.m. returned from there to his house. On the way, when he reached at ‘Jagota Mor’, he found a Kwid Car parked on the turn of the road and saw the applicant-appellant along with his informers taking liquor in an open space by the side of the road. On seeing this, the complainant returned back to the house of his uncle and narrated the entire story to him and also telephonically informed about the same to his friend Naresh

¶25

4

¶26

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶27

Kumar. After this, complainant Kuldeep along with Naresh, Dalip, Nisar, Harish and Siri Ram came on the road where the applicant-appellant along with other accused persons was taking liquor. Thereafter, the complainant and his uncle Siri Ram went to the applicant-appellant and other boys followed them and asked the applicant-appellant and other persons with him that they were claiming themselves as Police Officers at an earlier occasion and are now taking liquor at a public place. On this, the applicant-appellant and his associates stood up and engaged in a verbal duel with the complainant and his uncle. At the same time, Sh. Sukh Dev, another uncle of complainant also reached there and enquired the cause of altercation and he was told that the applicant-appellant had slapped a boy on 22.10.2020 without any cause or justification. When Sukh Dev, the deceased, asked the applicant-appellant as to why they had slapped a boy on 22.10.2020, then the applicant-appellant indulged in an altercation with him and during the altercation went towards his Car and brought a knife and inflicted twice on the left side of the stomach of Sukh Dev. When the complainant and his uncle Siri Ram moved to save Sukh Dev, the applicantappellant also attacked them and gave stab blow on the

¶28

5

¶29

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶30

stomach of Siri Ram. The deceased Sukh Dev was bleeding heavily and was taken to CHC, Kunihar in the Car of the applicant-appellant where he died. Siri Ram was shifted to IGMC for further treatment and complainant Kuldeep Kumar was found to have received simple injuries in the said incident.

¶31

It is also the case of the prosecution that on receiving information at Police Post, Subathu regarding the incident, Inspector Daya Ram visited the spot and CHC, Kunihar, where the complainant was under treatment and after recording his statement, the aforesaid case FIR came to be registered against the applicant-appellant. Thereafter, the applicant-appellant and other arrayed accused persons were arrested on 25.10.2020 and the police investigated the case. After the investigation, a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against the applicant-appellant and other accused persons for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC in the Court of JMFC, who after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions being a Sessions trial.

¶32

The learned Sessions Judge, Solan, charged the applicant-appellant and other accused persons for having

¶33

6

¶34

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶35

committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶36

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. The applicant-appellant and other accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the incriminating evidence and examined 5 witnesses in their defence.

¶37

On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28.07.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.3-S/7 of 2021 convicted the applicant-appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and acquitted the other accused persons of the charges framed against them.

¶38

After conviction, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 sentenced the appellant as under:

¶39

Offence	Sentence	Fine	Default
U/s 302 IPC	Rigorous Imprisonment for life	Rs.10,000/-	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
U/s 324 IPC	Simple imprisonment for one year	Nil

¶40

Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶41

7

¶42

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶43

It is also averred that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is bad and against the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. The applicant-appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court without there being any evidence on record. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that the applicant-appellant was guilty of having committed the alleged offence. The applicantappellant has an arguable case in his favour and the appeal filed by him is likely to be accepted in all probabilities.

¶44

The applicant-appellant has also averred that he is in custody since 25.10.2020 and has already undergone sentence for a period of four years and three months. The applicant was a government employee and has been suspended from service after the registration of the FIR in this case.

¶45

The applicant-appellant has further averred that he is married, having two sons aged about 21 and 17 years. The wife of the applicant-appellant is a house wife and mother of the applicant-appellant is 75 years old and counting her last days as she is on 24 hours constant oxygen support. There is no one to take care of the mother of the applicant-appellant and she requires constant care.

¶46

8

¶47

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶48

It is vehemently argued by Shri Ajay

¶49

Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant that taking the case of the prosecution as it is, no offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is made out and findings to this effect recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are contrary to the record. He would further contend that in case prima facie a case under Section 302 of IPC is not made out, then this is a fit case where sentence ought to be suspended.

¶50

On the other hand, Shri J.S.Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that keeping in view the nature of crime, the applicant-Mani Ram has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court.

¶51

It is more than settled that while deciding an application for suspension of sentence, more particularly, a case pertaining to Section 302 of IPC, the Court has to consider whether the applicant-appellant has a fair chance of acquittal.

¶52

Now, adverting to the evidence on record, it would be noticed that it was PW-3, who categorically stated that on an earlier occasion on 22.10.2020, when he along with certain other persons was going to attend a marriage, then the applicant-appellant had accused them of using intoxicants and

¶53

9

¶54

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶55

had even slapped one Naresh. Later on, on 24.10.2020, at about 6.00-6.15 p.m. when he was returning to his house from the house of his uncle Siri Ram, he saw the applicant-appellant taking liquor at a public place and then returned to the house of his uncle Siri Ram and informed him about the incident which had taken place on 22.10.2020. From the house of his uncle, he also informed Naresh and after this, he along with his uncle Siri Ram, Naresh, Lucky and Nisar came towards Jagota Mor and he along with his uncle Siri Ram went towards the applicant-appellant to ask him regarding the incident and if he was a police official, why he was talking liquor at the public place. This led to a verbal duel between the parties. On hearing this commotion generated on account of altercation, his uncle Sukh Dev also reached on the spot and asked them about the cause of altercation. The applicant-appellant again indulged in altercation with them. It is alleged that the applicant-appellant Mani Ram went upto his car and took out a knife from there and stabbed Sukh Dev twice on his stomach and when he along with Siri Ram intervened to save Sukh Dev, the applicant-appellant gave stab blow with knife on the stomach of Siri Ram and also attacked on him, as a result of

¶56

10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶57

which, his little finger of right hand and wrist of left hand were injured.

¶58

Somewhat similar are the statements of PW-1 Siri

¶59

Ram and PW-4 Naresh.

¶60

Now, in case the statements of these witnesses are taken on their face value, it would be noticed that even as per statements of these witnesses of the prosecution, the applicantappellant along with two other co-accused was stated to be taking liquor. But, then it was the complainant along with seven other people, who virtually took up a cudgel with the applicantappellant and in such a situation, it is not difficult to imagine as to what would happen when a person is surrounded by eight hostile persons, who were otherwise agitated with his previous conduct displayed on 22.10.2020.

¶61

That apart, the version put-forth by the complainant (PW-3) regarding stab injuries is falsified in the testimony of PW-16, who examined Sukh Dev uncle of PW3 and on examination found incised wound 11 cm extending obliquely posteriorly axillary line to anterior axillary line that is on the back of person of Sukh Dev and not on the stomach, as alleged and stated by PW-3 and PW-4 Naresh. This fact has further been admitted by this witness in the cross-examination when

¶62

11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶63

she states that in the case of Sukh Dev the origin of injury was

¶64

from backside.

¶65

It also needs to be noticed that the applicantappellant himself had sustained injuries as is evident from the testimony of PW-20 doctor Nischae, who found the following injuries on the person of the applicant-appellant:

¶66

(i) Lacerated wound of size 4-5 cm on the left side of forehead.

¶67

(ii) Abrasion would of size 1-3 cm on left leg above knee joint.

¶68

(iii) Abrasion would of size 0.5-1 cm on left leg below knee joint.

¶69

It has further come in the testimony of this witness that head wound of applicant-appellant was also stitched.

¶70

We are conscious of the fact that no cross FIR

¶71

was lodged by the applicant-appellant where the question as to who was the aggressor could have been determined. But, nonetheless the factual background of this case coupled with the injuries sustained by the applicant-appellant himself cannot be ignored, especially, keeping in view the number of persons from the complainant side present on the spot when compared to the applicant-appellant and the other two co-accused.

¶72

Having said so, we find that the applicant-appellant has a fair chance of acquittal. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence is

¶73

12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:12320 )

¶74

allowed, conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 and 31.07.2023, in Sessions Trial No. 3-S/7 of 2021, is ordered to be suspended. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned jail Superintendent with the undertaking that he shall appear before the court as and when required; shall not leave the Indian territory during the pendency of the appeal and shall also surrender to the Court in case ultimately his appeal is dismissed.

¶75

It is made clear that the observations made here-in-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the main appeal.

¶76

THAKURKHEM RAJ Digitally signed by KHEM RAJ THAKURDN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=b3bb0330a36091c417dc6aa42212c14caec7825ba4158459325bd600d273f58b, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=6aa9db3b3e85e608387fb6f0fa0bb2ddacd2e1b82f232ca3c0adea331da33983, CN=KHEM RAJ THAKURReason: I am approving this documentLocation: Date: 2025-05-05 14:45:41

¶77

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge

¶78

2^nd May, 2025. (krt)

Mani Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram v. State of Hp

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

State of Hp Vs Duni Chand Alias Dumna

Narkanda Filling Station Vs the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Another

M/S Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sulakhan Singh Vs State of Hp

Gummat Ram Vs State of Hp

Inderjeet Singh Vs State of Hp