Allowed

Piar Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Jul 2026CRMPM/2859/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim's father sought condonation of 1-year-and-12-days delay in appealing against acquittal under Sections 304 and 201 IPC. The court condoned the delay, allowed the application, directed registration of the appeal and requisition of records, and disposed of the leave-to-appeal application as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1 year 12 days in filing appeal against acquittal condoned; appeal ordered registered and listed for consideration on 06.10.2026.

Piar Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Piar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP(M) No. 2859 of 2025

¶2

20.07.2026 Present: Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate, vice Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

¶3

Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State.

¶4

Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶5

Cr. MP(M) No. 2859 of 2025

¶6

This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1 year and 12 days in filing the appeal against the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3 in Case FIR No. 20 of 2015, dated 12.02.2015, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC").

¶7

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that applicant is the father of the deceased victim and was not a party in the trial against the respondents No. 2 and 3. He came to know about the acquittal of the private respondents after about 1 year and, immediately thereafter, he filed the present application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal against acquittal of private respondents.

¶8

Having gone through the averments made in the application, reply and rejoinder thereto and also considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, we are of the considered

¶9

opinion that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the present matter.

¶10

Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal against

¶11

the acquittal of private respondents No.2 and 3 is condoned.

¶12

Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Cr. A No.____ of 2025 [Cr.A(A-DB) ST9628/25]

¶13

Be registered.

¶14

Respondents are duly represented.

¶15

Records be requisitioned.

¶16

List for consideration on 06.10.2026.

¶17

Cr. MP No.____ of 2025 (Cr.MPMST9629/2025) Be Registered.

¶18

This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal for filing an appeal on behalf of the victim/complainant against the acquittal of the private respondents.

¶19

As per the settled law, such an application is not required to be filed in an appeal preferred by the complainant or on behalf of the victim.

¶20

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of being not pressed.

¶21

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

¶22

Judge

¶23

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶24

20^th July, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)

Piar Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piar Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kaushal Vs Narinder Kumar

Yudhbir Singh Vs the State of Hp

Om Prakash Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Surinder Sharma Vs the State of Hp

Pooja Devi Vs State of Hp and Another

State of Hp Vs Gaurav Sharma