Dismissed¶15

State v. Bakshi Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2026CR.A/463/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal under S.378 CrPC against acquittal; S.324 IPC conviction (knife blow, simple injury) reversed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin; contradictions in prosecution evidence on sealing of knife Ex.P1 (seal-N vs newspaper), spot map and MLC timing; defence witness equal weightage (DW1 Kamal Dev); recovery of weapon doubtful; reliance on C. Magesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645; acquittal upheld, appeal dismissed, bail bonds discharged; decided 07.03.2026 by Sandeep Sharma, J (HHC).

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court upheld; State's criminal appeal dismissed; bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused discharged; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶15

State Vs Bakshi Ram — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin) reversing the trial Court's conviction of the accused under Section 324 IPC suffers from illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court on the State's appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies (inter alia, conflicting accounts on sealing of the seized knife, preparation of the spot map, and timing of medical examination), and not much reliance can be placed upon the prosecution witnesses while ascertaining guilt of the accused; this Court agrees with the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court.

¶13

Key takeaways

Defence witness DW1 Kamal Dev's version (presence on the spot admitted by PW3 and the Investigator; signatures obtained on seizure memo Ex.PW3/A on Police direction; money transaction between complainant and accused) creates serious doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution story; defence witnesses are entitled to equal weightage as prosecution witnesses, and the trial Court erred in ignoring his version while concluding guilt under Section 324 IPC.ratio¶11
Even the recovery of the weapon of offence (knife) is doubtful: PW7-ASI Surinder Pal and PW3-Ram Chand stated the knife was wrapped in a cloth parcel sealed with seal-N, whereas the complainant, present on the spot, categorically deposed that no seal was affixed and the knife was wrapped in a newspaper.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State against acquittal: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the judgment dated 08.07.2011 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 324 IPC (knife blow causing simple injury), finding material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence — conflicting versions on whether the seized knife was sealed (cloth parcel with seal-N versus newspaper wrapping), on preparation of the spot map, and on the timing of the medical examination — and giving full weightage to the unrebutted testimony of defence witness DW1 Kamal Dev, whose presence on the spot was admitted and whose version created serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story; recovery of the weapon of offence was held doubtful. Relying on C. Magesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645 (evidence in criminal jurisprudence to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency), the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the appellate acquittal, dismissed the appeal and discharged the bail bonds furnished by the accused.

¶1

2026:HHC:6745

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

		Cr. Appeal No.463 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.03.2026
____________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh Bakshi Ram	________	________________________________ ……...Appellant Versus …....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Whether approved for reporti	Sharma, ng?	Judge.
____________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Gen	________ Anish eral.	________________________________ Banshtu, Deputy Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.	R.L. Ver	ma, Advocate.
___________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_	________	________________________________

¶4

Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 08.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter, ‘Appellate Court’) reversing the judgment passed by trial Court, whereby learned trial Court though proceeded to acquit the respondent-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, but convicted him under Section 324 of I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay

¶5

2026:HHC:6745

¶6

¶7

fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

¶8

In nutshell, case of the prosecution, as emerge from the material adduced on record is that on 30.04.2006, PW2-Mr. Jamna Dass (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) after loading cement in truck bearing No.HP-23-2247 from Barmana was going to Jalandhar along with other truck bearing No.HP-23A-2463, being driven by PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Conductor. At about 11:15 p.m., both the trucks halted at Targhel, where complainant noticed that accused was hurling abuses to his son and when complainant objected to it, accused inflicted a knife blow on his left arm. Complainant was saved by PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Sunil Kumar from the clutches of the accused. Accused also threatened to do away with the life of the complainant. Complainant telephonically informed the owner of the truck PW3-Mr. Ram Chand as well as Police. Police after having reached the spot, took into possession the knife from the accused. Complainant was referred for medical treatment and he was examined by PW5-Dr. T.S. Chandel, who, by way of MLC, Ex.PW5/A, opined that injury caused to the person of complainant with the sharp edged weapon was simple in nature. In the

¶9

2026:HHC:6745

¶10

¶11

afore background, FIR, Ex.PW4/A, came to be lodged against the accused.

¶12

After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan against the accused in the competent Court of law, which after being satisfied that prima facie case exists against accused, named in the chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C., proceeded to frame charge against him under Sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶13

Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas accused examined one witness DW1-Mr. Kamal Dev in his defence. On the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court though acquitted the accused under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC, but convicted him under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing voluntary hurt to complainant with a sharp edged weapon i.e. knife and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as per description given hereinabove.

¶14

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction, accused preferred appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 08.07.2011. In the afore background,

¶15

2026:HHC:6745

¶16

¶17

appellant/State has approached this Court, praying therein for restoration of judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Appellate Court.

¶18

Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that impugned judgment of learned Appellate Court is totally contrary to evidence led on record by the prosecution. He submitted that bare perusal of the statement made by complainant, which was further corroborated by PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar, clearly reveals that on the date of alleged incident, accused had caused injury on the person of the complainant with sharp edged weapon i.e. knife, as a result thereof, he suffered injury which was opined to be simple in nature, but caused with a sharp edged weapon vide MLC Ex.CW-5/A. While making this Court peruse documentary as well as oral evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, Mr. Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently argued that since prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused had inflicted injury on the person of the complainant with sharp edged weapon, there was no occasion, if any, for learned Appellate Court to reverse the judgment of

¶19

2026:HHC:6745

¶20

¶21

conviction recorded against the accused under the aforesaid provision of law.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order, this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, rather this Court finds that Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope left for interference.

¶23

Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined PW2-Mr. Jamna Dass i.e. complainant, who deposed that he is driver by profession and was driving the truck bearing No.HP-23-2463 owned by PW3-Mr. Ram Chand. He deposed that on 30.04.2006, he loaded cement from Barmana and was going to Jalandhar with another truck bearing No.HP-23-2463, which was being driven by PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Sunil Kumar was Conductor of aforesaid truck. He deposed that at Targhel, he as well as PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar stopped their trucks and noticed that accused was hurling abuses to his son and when he inquired the matter, accused inflicted a knife blow on his left arm below the shoulder. Complainant further deposed that he was saved

¶24

2026:HHC:6745

¶25

¶26

by PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Sunil Kumar from the clutches of the accused. He further testified that he informed PW3-Mr. Ram Chand, owner of the truck, who also came on the spot along with Police and thereafter Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He deposed that accused produced the knife before the Police which was taken into possession by the Police after wrapping it in a cloth parcel. If the statement of PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar, driver of truck bearing No.HP-232463, is perused in its entirety, it can be said that he also supported the case of the complainant that accused inflicted a blow on the left arm of complainant with a knife.

¶27

PW3-Mr. Ram Chand, owner of the truck bearing No.HP-232247, though admitted factum of his having received telephonic call from the complainant, but he nowhere disclosed presence of PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Sunil Kumar on the spot. He deposed that knife was taken into possession by the Police vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B in his presence and in the presence of Mr. Kamal Dev and accused also put his signature on it. PW7-ASI Surinder Pal deposed that he recorded the statements of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Ram Chand and Mr. Kamal Dev on the spot, whereas PW1-Mr. Ramesh Kumar deposed that his statement was not recorded on the spot, but in a hotel.

¶28

2026:HHC:6745

¶29

¶30

Similarly, PW3-Mr. Ram Chand deposed that his statement was also not recorded on the spot, rather same was recorded on the next day. PW7ASI Surinder Pal deposed that knife was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A in the presence of witnesses Mr. Ram Chand, Mr. Kamal Dev and accused. He further deposed that he conducted the investigation on the same day and visited the spot only once, whereas PW3-Mr. Ram Chand deposed that knife was taken into possession in his presence as well as in the presence of Mr. Kamal Dev by the Police vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and seizure memo was duly signed by him and the accused. Most importantly, complainant, who was present on the spot when the knife was taken into possession, deposed that Police did not affix any seal on the knife Ex.P1, rather it was wrapped in a newspaper. He also deposed that spot map was not prepared by the Police in the night, but it was prepared in the morning.

¶31

If the statement made by complainant is perused in its entirety, this Court is persuaded to conclude that version put forth by the aforesaid witness is totally contrary to the statement of PW7-ASI Surinder Pal that the knife was wrapped in a cloth parcel sealed with seal-N. There is contradiction in the statement of PW7-ASI Surinder Pal that he prepared the spot map on the same day. According to

¶32

2026:HHC:6745

¶33

¶34

complainant, his medical was conducted on the next day at about 10:30 a.m., which fact has also been admitted by PW7-ASI Surinder Pal, however, PW5-Dr. T.S. Chandel, who medically examined the complainant, deposed that he medically examined the injured on 01.05.2006 at 01:30 a.m. He deposed that weapon of offence was not shown to him during the medical examination of the patient. Afore witness admitted that if a person is hit with the weapon shown to him in the Court, with force, then the injury could be fatal.

¶35

DW1-Mr. Kamal Dev in his statement deposed that he was employed as a salesman in a country liquor vend at Targhel and in his presence, no quarrel took place between complainant and the accused. While denying that Police had taken into possession the knife in his presence, he deposed that his signatures were obtained by the Police on the seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that PW3-Mr. Ram Chand did not put his signatures on the seizure memo, but he put the signatures on the seizure memo in good faith on the direction of Police. He further deposed that complainant and accused were involved in a money transaction. If the statement of aforesaid defence witness is read in its entirety, it creates doubt with regard to correctness of story put forth by the prosecution. Since factum of presence of afore witness DW1-

¶36

2026:HHC:6745

¶37

¶38

Mr. Kamal Dev has been admitted by PW3-Mr. Ram Chand, owner of the vehicle, version put forth by him otherwise could not have been brushed aside. Presence of DW1-Mr. Kamal Dev on the spot was admitted by the Investigator as well as PW3-Mr. Ram Chand, who claimed to have put signatures on seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. Though, by now it is well settled that defence witnesses are entitled to equal weightage as that of the prosecution, however, in the instant case, learned trial Court, while concluding guilt of the accused under Section 324 of IPC ignored the version put forth by afore witness, which in fact creates serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the story put forth by the prosecution. 12. In the case at hand, even the recovery of weapon of offence is also doubtful. PW7-ASI Surinder Pal deposed that knife was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/A in the presence of witnesses Mr. Ram Chand, Mr. Kamal Dev and accused. PW3-Mr. Ram Chand deposed that knife was taken into possession in his presence as well as in the presence of Mr. Kamal Dev by the Police vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and seizure memo was duly signed by him and accused, and knife was wrapped in a cloth parcel sealed with seal-N, however, complainant, who was present on the spot where the knife was taken into possession,

¶39

2026:HHC:6745

¶40

¶41

categorically deposed that Police did not affix any seal on the knife Ex.P1, rather same was wrapped in a newspaper.

¶42

Having scanned entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, this Court is persuaded to agree with the findings returned by learned Appellate Court that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and not much reliance can be placed upon the prosecution witnesses while ascertaining guilt, if any, of the accused.

¶43

In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645 , wherein it has been held as under:-

¶44

“45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686: 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14)

¶45

“ 14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy;..the probative value of such evidence becomes

¶46

2026:HHC:6745

¶47

¶48

eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.”

¶49

46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that “ no man is guilty until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses.”

¶50

Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made

¶51

hereinabove, as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are hereby discharged.

¶52

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶53

March 07, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge

State v. Bakshi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bakshi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs Anu Thakur

Shiv Ram Vs Tara Dutt Nirmohi

State Vs Bias Dev

Amit Kumar Vs Maneesh Srivastava