Bhagat Ram Vs State

2026:HHC:12478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 9 and 23 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.4.2026

____________________________________ 1.Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2011	________________	_________________
Bhagat Ram and Anr. State of Himachal Pradesh	Versus	……...Appellants …....Respondent
2.Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011
Duni Chand	Versus	……...Appellant
State of Himachal Pradesh		…....Respondent

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Gupta and Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶7

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both

¶9

the above captioned appeals, this court heard them together and same are now being disposed of vide common judgment.

¶10

2026:HHC:12478

¶11

2

¶12

2. Afore appeals filed under Section 374 of CrPC, lay challenge to judgment dated 4.1.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Karsog) in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2004, whereby appellant/accused (herein after “accused”) came to be convicted and sentenced as per description given herein below:

¶13

Accused No.1 Duni Chand

¶14

Sections	Punishment	Fine	In case of default inpaymentof fine
307 of IPC	RI of 5 years	Rs.20,000/-	SI for 3 months.
498-A of IPC	RI for 2 years	Rs.10,000/-	SI for 2 months.
201 of IPC	RI for 1 year	Rs.10,000/-	SI for 2 months.

¶15

Accused No.2 Bhagat Ram

¶16

Sections	Punishment	Fine	In case of default inpaymentof fine
498-A of IPC	RI for 2 years	Rs.10,000/-	SI for 2 months.
201 of IPC	RI for 1 year	Rs.10,000/-	SI for 2 months.
Accused No.3	Padmu Devi
Sections	Punishment	Fine	In case of default inpayment of fine
498-A of IPC	RI for 2 years	Rs.10,000/-	SI for 2 months.

¶17

Besides above, learned court below awarded sum of Rs. 30,000/- to Monika (vicim/injured) and Rs. 20,000/- to Dharma Devi (victim/injured), as compensation.

¶18

3. In nutshell, case of the prosecution as emerge from the record is that FIR (Ext.PW1/A), came to be lodged at the behest of PW1 Hem Raj, who alleged that on 14.10.2003 at about 5:30pm, while he was ploughing

¶19

2026:HHC:12478

¶20

3

¶21

his fields with his mother Jasmati Devi, he after having heard some noise, talked to one Lej Ram on his telephone. Lej Ram told PW1 Hem Raj that accused Duni Chand has caused injuries to PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika. Complainant alleged that he along with his mother went towards the house of PW14 Monika, where she was found in injured condition. Complainant further alleged that PW14 Monika had suffered deep cut on her arms and neck and her clothes were also stained with blood. He also alleged that PW9 Dharma Devi also suffered injuries on her forehead, face and body and persons namely Lej Ram, Kewal Krishan and PW3 Pooja were also present there. He alleged that accused Duni Chand, who was tied to a pillar in a verandah, was proclaiming that he has committed a mistake. In the afore background, above named injured were taken to hospital and on the basis of statement made by PW1 Hem Raj under Section 154 CrPC, FIR Ext.PW1/A was registered in the Police Station.

¶22

4. PW22-SI Vijay Sen conducted investigation and after completion of the same, presented challan in the competent court of law, which, being satisfied that prima-facie case is made out against the accused, proceeded to frame charges under Sections 307, 498-A and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶23

2026:HHC:12478

¶24

4

¶25

5. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 28 witnesses, whereas accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, denied case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. They also produced one evidence in defence i.e. DW1 Pyare Lal, in their defence. 6. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 4.1.2010 held the accused guilty of having committed offences under afore provisions of law and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as per the description given herein above. In the aforesaid background, present appellants/accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi.

¶26

7. Precisely, the grouse of the appellants as has been highlighted in both the appeals and further canvassed by Mr.N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocate, is that learned Additional Sessions Judge while ascertaining guilt, if any, of the accused, has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which findings to the determinant of the accused, who are otherwise innocent, have come to the fore. Mr. Chandel, vehemently argued that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the statements of material

¶27

2026:HHC:12478

¶28

5

¶29

prosecution witnesses i.e. PW3 Pooja, PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, on account of there being material contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements. He further submitted that accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi were not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant date and time, but yet they have been convicted merely on the sole testimony of PW14 Monika that she was constantly harassed and mentally tortured by the accused on account of bringing less dowry. Mr. Chandel, submitted that no evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record to prove demand of dowry or complaint, if any, made in that regard by PW14 Monika. He further submitted that though prosecution attempted to prove that co-accused Bhagat Ram tried to destroy the evidence by washing the blood stains on the floor as well as wall , but once it is not in dispute that investigating agency was able to collect the blood samples and on the basis of same, subsequently, it came to be opined by the CFSL that blood found on the floor and wall is A +ve, no prejudice, if any, can be said to be caused on account of attempt, if any, made by the Bhagat Ram to destroy the evidence, who was otherwise not present there at the relevant time. While referring to the statement made by PW3 Kumari Pooja, Mr. Chandel submitted that version put forth by afore witness otherwise could not be believed on account of her conduct and being minor. Lastly, Mr. Chandel, argued that having taken note of MLC (Ext.PW16/B) as well as

¶30

2026:HHC:12478

¶31

6

¶32

statement made by PW21 Dr. Mohit Arora, no case can be said to made out under Section 307 of IPC, rather at best, case, if any, against accused Duni Chand could have been registered under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous injury. He submitted that since no case is made out against accused Duni Chand under Section 307 of IPC, sentence awarded to him qua afore provision of law needs to be reduced.

¶33

8. While supporting the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that bare perusal of evidence led on record by the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused, nowhere suggests that it while ascertaining guilt of the accused named, in the FIR, trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather court below meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope of interference. While referring to the statements made by PW1 Hem Raj, PW3 Pooja, PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, Mr. Panwar, attempted to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Duni Chand caused injury on the vital organs of PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika and same were sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course. While referring to MLCs adduced on record, Mr. Panwar, further argued that injuries suffered by PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14

¶34

2026:HHC:12478

¶35

7

¶36

Monika in the alleged incident were opined to be grievous in nature with further opinion that those were sufficient to cause death. While making this Court peruse Section 307 of IPC, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that bare perusal of same clearly reveals that prosecution with a view to prove case under Section 307 of IPC is not under obligation to prove intention, rather knowledge in terms of aforesaid provision of law can be inferred by the type of weapon used by the accused for committing offence punishable under this Section. He further submitted that accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi have been rightly convicted under Section 498-A because it has categorically come in the statements of PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika that they were constantly harassed and tortured by above named accused for bringing less dowry. He further submitted that statement of PW3 Pooja clearly reveals that accused Bhagat Ram attempted to destroy the evidence by washing the blood stains from the floor and wall.

¶37

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and reasoning rendered in the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Senior counsel representing the accused that prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Duni Chand committed offence punishable Section 307 of IPC. There is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution that on the date of alleged incident, accused Duni Chand

¶38

2026:HHC:12478

¶39

8

¶40

inflicted injury on the vital parts of PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika with “Darat”. If the statements made by PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika are read in conjunction, they in unison stated on the date of alleged incident, accused Duni Chand firstly attacked PW9 Dharma Devi with Darat on temporal region of scalp, as a result of which, left eye of Dharma Devi was also perforated. Once PW14 Monika, who happens to be wife of the accused Duni Chand, attempted to save PW9 Dharma Devi from the clutches of accused Duni Chand, he also inflicted blow of Darat on the neck of PW14 Monika. While PW14 Monika attempted to protect her neck by placing her hands on the same, accused Duni Chand also gave blow of darat, as a result thereof, her hand was chopped and bones were fractured. PW16 Dr. Ajay Verma, who had medically examined PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, categorically opined injuries, as detailed herein above, suffered by PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 to be grievous caused by sharp edged weapon. He further opined that injuries caused on the persons of PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika could be dangerous to their life.

¶41

10. Prosecution with a view to prove its case against the accused named in the charge sheet set up case that marriage inter-se accused Duni Chand and PW14 Monika was solemnized on 16.4.2001 and out of their wedlock, one male child was born. After lapse of two or four months of their marriage, accused Duni Chand started torturing PW14 Monika, who also

¶42

2026:HHC:12478

¶43

9

¶44

alleged that she was also tortured by her father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi, for bringing less dowry. As prosecution story, PW14 Monika was constantly harassed/teased by her husband accused Duni Chand, who used to say that child given birth by her is not conceived from him. Prosecution also attempted to prove that prior to the alleged incident, there was dispute inter-se parties, as a result thereof, PW14 Monika had left her matrimonial house, but subsequently with the intervention of respectable members of the society, she was brought back to her matrimonial house.

¶45

11. On the date of alleged incident, PW14 Monika along with her husband had gone to paddy field, however accused Duni Chand asked her to go back to the house for preparing dinner. Though PW14 Monika came back to the house for preparing dinner but left her son in the company of the accused Duni Chand, who came after some time. Duni Chand after having left his son in the kitchen went to the adjoining room of the house and thereafter, came in the side of the kitchen with Darat. Accused Duni Chand lifted the child from the kitchen and brought him outside and thereafter, straight away went to the kitchen of PW9 Dharma Devi, who happens to be his sister-in-law and inflicted her injuries with darat as detailed herein above.

¶46

2026:HHC:12478

¶47

10

¶48

12. PW3 Pooja daughter of Dharma Devi after having seen accused Duni Chand giving beatings to her mother went to PW14 Monika, who tried to intervene, but she was also given beatings by the accused Duni Chand as has been taken note herein above. PW1 Hem Raj, who had reached on the spot after having received information with regard to attack upon her sister i.e. Monika, saw accused tied with pillar and he was also stating that he has committed a wrong. Admittedly, on the date of alleged incident, neither accused Bhagat Ram nor Padmu Devi were present at the place of occurrence. Accused Bhagat Ram had gone for night duty to Karsog, whereas accused Padmu was residing with her daughter at Shimla. Allegedly, accused Bhagat Ram after coming back to place of occurrence washed stains of blood lying on the floor and wall as has been stated by PW3 Pooja.

¶49

13. There are only three persons who had an occasion to see the incident with their own eyes i.e. PW3 Pooja, PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, who happen to be niece, sister-in-law and wife of the accused Duni Chand. If the version put forth by these witnesses is read in conjunction, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies, rather this court finds that there is a consistency and all the witnesses have narrated sequence of events in similar manner and there appears to be no

¶50

2026:HHC:12478

¶51

11

¶52

attempt, if any, at their behest to improve their version recorded by the police prior to filing of the charge sheet in the competent court of law

¶53

14. Similarly, cross-examination conducted upon these witnesses nowhere suggests that accused was able to extract something contrary to what they stated in their examination-in-chief. If the statements of these witness are read juxtaposing statement made by PW16 Dr. Vijay Verma, Medical Officer of Hospital at Sarkaghat as well as MLCs, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, that prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused Duni Chand inflicted blow of darat on the vital body parts of PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, as a result thereof, both of them suffered grievous injuries, which could be dangerous of their life. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been caused by the court below while holding accused guilty of his having committed offence under Section 307 of IPC.

¶54

15. To invoke Section 307 of IPC, it is not necessary that injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted, rather injury sustained , the manner of assault and weapon used , are sufficient to invoke aforesaid provision of law. Admittedly, in the case at hand, use of weapon i.e. darat coupled with the fact that on account of use of aforesaid weapon, grievous injuries came to be inflicted on the vital parts of PW9

¶55

2026:HHC:12478

¶56

12

¶57

Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, clearly brings the case in the ambit of Section 307 of IPC. Person using darat for inflicting injury can be said to have definite knowledge that in the event of his/her using such weapon, he/she may cause injury which can cause death.

¶58

16. In the case at hand, doctor attending upon victims PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, has categorically stated that injuries caused on the vital parts of the persons of PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. As far as assault on PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika is concerned, nature of assault and injuries found, clearly bring in the application of Section 307 of IPC and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned court below in convicting the accused Duni Chand under afore provision of law. Essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of Section 307 are (i) That the death of human being was attempted; (ii) That such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and iii) That such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as; (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b)

¶59

2026:HHC:12478

¶60

13

¶61

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.

¶62

17. The question of intention to kill or knowledge of death in terms of Section 307 of IPC is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depend upon facts of a given case. The important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under Section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury (even if simple or minor). It is not necessary that injury capable causing death should have been inflicted, rather what is material to attract provision of Section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with which all was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results.

¶63

18. For the reasons and discussions made herein above, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgment in as much as accused Duni Chand came to be convicted under Section 307 of IPC, however, having taken note of strained relationship inter-se accused Duni Chand, PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika coupled with the fact that no independent witnesses ever came to be adduced on record by the prosecution to corroborate their versions, this Court is of the view that sentence of five years recorded under Section 307 of IPC is on higher side.

¶64

2026:HHC:12478

¶65

14

¶66

19. If the statement made by DW1 Payare Lal, who happens to be husband of PW9 Dharma Devi is perused in entirety, it clearly reveals that relationship inter-se parties were not cordial and in past also, quarrel had taken place inter-se accused Duni Chand, PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, who otherwise attempted to prove that from day one of her marriage, accused Duni Chand along with her parents had been troubling/torturing her for bringing less dowry, which fact otherwise has not been proved in accordance with law. Though statements of PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika with regard to demand of dowry cannot be ignored conveniently, but at the same time, their evidence is required to be considered with utmost caution in view of the fact that on the date of alleged incident, both Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi were not present on the spot and dispute inter-se parties had not arisen on account of demand of dowry. 20. Moreover, this Court after having perused entire evidence led on record has not been able to find out reason for quarrel on the date of alleged incident. Though as per prosecution case, accused after having come from fields straightaway went to the kitchen of PW9 Dharma Devi and inflicted injury, but nothing as emerged in the case of prosecution as to what prompted accused Duni Chand to inflict injury. Motive or cause to inflict injury in the case of PW14 Monika can be understood for the reason

¶67

2026:HHC:12478

¶68

15

¶69

that she attempted to stop Duni Chand from inflicting injury on the person of PW9 Dharma Devi, but prosecution story is completely silent about motive or cause, which prompted the accused to inflict grievous injury on the persons of PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika.

¶70

21. Though for the detailed discussion as well as evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, this court has no doubt that accused Duni Chand caused grievous injuries on the person of PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, which could be dangerous to their life and as such, he rightly came to be convicted under Section 307 of IPC, but for the omissions and lacunas as pointed out herein above, sentence awarded by the court below could be on lower side. 22. Moreover, this court finds that alleged incident had happened 23 years back and at that time, age of the accused was 30 years, but during the pendency of present appeals, he has now attained the age of 53 years. Hence, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of five years awarded by the court below under Section 307 of IP to two years.

¶71

23. As far as conviction of accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, this Court is in full agreement with learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no evidence to conclude guilt of the aforesaid accused under the aforesaid provisions of law. If the version put forth by PW 9 Dharma Devi and PW14

¶72

2026:HHC:12478

¶73

16

¶74

Monika are read in their entirety, they in most casual manner have stated that they were also tortured and harassed by their in-laws for bringing less dowry. Admittedly, in the case at hand, PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika were married to accused Duni Chand and DW1 Payare Lal, respectively much prior to the date of incident. Marriage of DW1 Payare Lal was solemnized 17 years prior to the incident, whereas marriage of PW14 Monika was solemnized two years prior to the incident and during afore period, no complaint, if any, with regard to constant maltreatment /harassment with regard to bringing less dowry ever came to be lodged with the Gram Panchayat or police. If PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika were aggrieved on account harassment/maltreatment meted by the accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi for bringing less dowry, they would have registered a separate case against them, but definitely much prior to alleged incident. Admittedly, on the date of alleged incident, both Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi were not present at the spot of occurrence as has been fairly admitted by the prosecution witnesses. On the date of alleged incident, accused Duni Chand gave beatings to PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, but while giving statement to the police, afore witnesses in most casual manner stated that they were also harassed for bringing less dowry by the accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi.

¶75

2026:HHC:12478

¶76

17

¶77

24. Careful perusal of Section 498-A of IPC reveals that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects a woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Most importantly, explanation to afore provision of law defines “ cruelty ” as; (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

¶78

25. If the statements made by PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika are tested on the touchstone of afore provision of law, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi raised unlawful demand of dowry from PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika, however court below merely on the basis of bald statements of PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika proceeded to hold both the accused guilty of their having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, which is not made out. Hence judgment

¶79

2026:HHC:12478

¶80

18

¶81

passed by the learned court below holding accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi guilty of having committed offence 498A is set aside and they are acquitted of afore charge.

¶82

26. No doubt, PW3 Pooja, deposed that her grandfather i.e. Bhagat Ram, washed blood stains from floor and wall of the house, but such version of her may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the accused Bhagat Ram under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. If the statement of PW3 Pooja is read in entirety, it clearly suggests that she was residing in other house with her aunt at the time of the alleged incident. Moreover, it is admitted case of the prosecution that on the date of alleged incident, accused Bhagat Ram was not present at the place of occurrence, rather he had gone to do his night duty. It also emerges from the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution that on the report made by PW1 Hem Raj, police had come on the spot immediately after the alleged incident, which fact has been otherwise admitted by PW3 Pooja. As per statement of PW3, police came on the spot on the same night, but there is nothing in the statement of material prosecution witnesses that accused Bhagat Ram after having come to know about the alleged incident had come back on the same day. Omission, if any, in the statement of PW3, with regard to return of afore accused gains significance for the reason that as per version put

¶83

2026:HHC:12478

¶84

19

¶85

forth by prosecution witnesses, above named Bhagat Ram had gone for night duty.

¶86

27. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that blood group of PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika is A+ve and blood samples collected from the floor by the prosecution were also subsequently found to be A+ve. Memo prepared on the spot at the time of collection sample clearly reveals that they had picked up blood sample which was found deposited on the floor and wall. Otherwise also, having carefully perused Section 201 IPC, which states that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, this is Court is of the view that no case is made out under Section 201 against the accused Bhagat Ram. No evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record by the prosecution that accused Bhagat Ram, whose presence is otherwise doubtful on the spot on the date of occurrence with a view to save the accused Duni Chand from legal punishment, attempted to destroy the evidence. Hence, conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mandi under Section 201 of IPC is also set-aside.

¶87

28. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, Cr.A No. 23 of 20211 , titled as Duni Chand v. State of Himachal

¶88

2026:HHC:12478

¶89

20

¶90

Pradesh is partly allowed. Though judgment of conviction recorded against appellant under Section 307 of IPC is upheld but sentence is modified/reduced to two years, whereas rest of the sentence is upheld.

¶91

29. Cr.A No. 9 of 2011 , titled as Bhagat Ram and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh , is allowed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.1.2010 is set aside in as much as appellants/accused Bhagat Ram and Padmu Devi have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A and 201 of IPC and they are acquitted of the charges. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by them are discharged.

¶92

30. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. All miscellaneous applications in both the appeals also stand disposed of. Record, if any, received by sent back forthwith.

¶93

April 18, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Bhagat Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat Ram 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

Hariman Negi Vs Parma Nand

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Raj Pal Singh

Jai Prakash Vs State of Hp

Kailash Chand Vs State of Hp and Another

Manoj Kumar Bansal Vs State of Hp and Another

Ankur Sharma Vs Liaquat Ali Khan