( 2026:HHC:19997 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 217 of 2010 Reserved on: 27.04.2026 Decided on: 26.05.2026 Date of Uploading on Website: 26.05.2026 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal & Ors. ……Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the appellant/State: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Appeal against respondents No. 1 to 3 stands abated. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 8. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No. 9. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 10/7 of 2004/02, whereby the respondents/accused 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 1 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) were convicted under Sections 435, 325, 147 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story are that on 23.05.1998, Ranvir Singh was doing construction work in his cowshed, where he had engaged Mast Ram as mason and Joginder Singh as labourer. Around 4:30 P.M., accused Parveen and his younger brother Rajinder Kumar came in the courtyard of Ranvir Singh and inquired about the construction work being carried out by him. Both the accused threatened Ranvir Singh with dire consequences and accused Rajinder Kumar was having knife with him. Ranvir Singh apprehending danger, went inside the house and telephonically informed the police about the incident. In the meantime, both the accused forcibly took Joginder Singh, labourer in their scooter to their house. After some time, father of the aforesaid accused persons, Jagdish Kumar came in a Maruti Van from Ghumarwin side and within 5-7 minutes of reaching the house, the said Van again came back and on its way, it was stopped by the complainant and his wife Manjuwala. In the said Van, accused Jagdish Kumar, Parveen Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and one unknown person were sitting alongwith Joginder Singh. Suddenly, the persons sitting in the vehicle started beating 2 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) the complainant and his wife. While the persons sitting in the vehicle were beating the complainant and his wife, other co- accused Rattani Devi, Sanju and his younger brother, who were nearby some Khokha, also came there to attack the complainant. Accused Kuldeep Singh, Roshan Lal, Surinder Singh, Anil Kumar and Lohka Ram were carrying dandas while the other persons were having stones/bricks in their hands. When complainant saw himself surrounded, he went inside his house due to fear and saw 2-3 heaps of firewood being set on fire by the accused. In the meantime, Surinder brother of the complainant, who was telephonically informed by the complainant’s wife about the incident, came to the spot. The moment he reached the courtyard of the complainant’s house, accused Kuldeep Singh, Anil Kumar and Lohka Ram proclaimed to kill him. Upon which, Rakesh Kumar and Kuldeep Singh caught hold of him and the other persons starting beating him, as a result of which, Surinder fell down unconscious and he was thrown into the fire by the accused persons. When the complainant saw that his brother was virtually killed by the accused, he came outside crying for help, where he was chased by accused Kuldeep Singh, Lohka Ram and Roshan Lal, but fortunately on the main road, he found a red light vehicle, which took him to the Police Station, Ghumarwin. Surinder was 3 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) somehow dragged from the fire place by Manjuwala and her daughter, but accused also gave beatings to them. When the complainant returned back, Surinder was unconscious at the spot and blood was oozing from his mouth, ear and nose, as such, he was taken to hospital. The telephonic information allegedly given by the complainant to the police before the incident was reduced into writing in Roznamcha, upon which, the police party went to the spot. The police visited Civil Hospital, Ghumarwin and found Surinder unable to give statement, as such, statement of Ranvir Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The medical examination reports of complainant, his daughters Nisha and Neha and his wife were obtained, wherein they found to have sustained simple injuries. The brother of the complainant Surinder was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted w.e.f. 24.05.1998 to 26.05.1998 and it was opined that he suffered grievous injuries. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 4 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2009 convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 435 IPC, one and half year under Section 325 IPC, fifteen days under Section 147 IPC and fifteen days under Section 323 IPC. A fine of Rs. 2,000/- each was also imposed upon the accused under Section 325 and 435 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 435 IPC and one and half month under Section 325 IPC. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant/State has filed the instant appeal. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the learned trial Court has erred in law in not convicting the accused persons under Section 307 IPC and has failed to appreciate the statement of PW-19, Dr. A. Pathak in its correct perspective, whereas, the entire medical evidence goes to prove the case of the prosecution under Section 307 IPC. He further contended that learned trial Court has not appreciated the statement of PW-1 correctly, who categorically deposed that accused attacked Surinder by giving brutal and merciless beatings to him with danda on his head and thereafter the accused pushed 5 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) him into the fire, due to which, he also sustained burn injuries. 6. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused contended that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused under Section 307 IPC as the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out on a plain reading of the allegations contained in the FIR. He further contended that the essential ingredient of mens rea i.e. a clear and deliberate intention or knowledge to cause death, is conspicuously absent in the present case. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/accused and carefully examined the entire records. 8. Even though the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses, however, the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of the PW-1 Ranvir Sen, PW-2 Manjuwala, PW-3 Nisha, PW-6, Joginder Singh, PW-19 Dr. A. Pathak and PW-20 Dr. Vikas Mandial. 9. PW-1, Ranbir Sen in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 23.5.1998 at about 4.30 P.M., he had engaged Mason etc. in order to make his cowshed cemented by laying R.C.C. etc. Mast Ram and Joginder Singh were Mason and labourer respectively. At about 4.30 P.M., Parveen and Rajinder 6 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) came to his cowshed and threatened that they would teach him a lesson. His children were present at the spot. Thereafter, Rajinder took out a knife to attack him and he ran away into his room. He made a telephonic call to police at Ghumarwin, as he was apprehending danger from the accused. Thereafter, accused Parveen and Rajinder forcibly took away his labourer Joginder on a scooter. After some time a white Van came from Ghumarwin side, in which, Jagdish, father of Parveen and Rajinder were sitting. The van went to the house of the accused. Thereafter, five persons namely Parveen, Rajinder, Jagdish alongwith the labourer Joginder and one more person, who was not known to him, came in the same van towards his house and when the van reached nearby his house, he alongwith his family members stopped the van. When the van was stopped, suddenly the accused attacked him. He got Joginder free from custody of the accused. The other accused Lohka Ram, Kuldeep Singh, Surinder Singh, Anil Kumar, Rattani Devi, Roshan Lal, Nirmla, Sanju @ Nirveer and Rakesh, came from nearby Khokha and they gave beatings to him. These accused were armed with dandas and some of them were having stones. The accused gave beatings to his wife and daughter and injured them. He ran inside his room in order to rescue himself from the accused. The accused also set on fire his fuel wood 7 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) stacked in three heaps in the courtyard of the house. The accused Nirmala had set on fire the fuel wood kept in the courtyard. his wife informed his brother Surinder Singh on telephone about the occurrence. When his brother reached at the spot after some time, the accused Lohka Ram, Kuldeep and Anil threatened to kill his brother. The accused Kuldeep, Rakesh and all other accused attacked his brother Surinder with dandas on his head and he fell unconscious at the spot. He was given brutal and merciless beatings by the accused. Blood had started oozing from his wounds. All the accused tried to push Surinder into the fire but members of his family intervened and rescued him from falling into the fire. Part of the body of Surinder Singh and his clothes got burnt when the accused tried to push him into the fire. Lohka Ram told other accused that they should burn Surinder alive. Had his family not intervened and rescued Surinder Singh. he would have been done away with his life by the accused. When he thought that his brother was killed, he took Darati (sickle) lying at the spot and attacked from its blunt side on Kuldeep, Lohka and Jagdish. Thereafter, these accused ran after him to attack him. The accused Kuldeep dragged his daughters Nisha and Neha from their hair. When the accused were running after him, a car having red light, came on the road which was stopped by him and he requested the 8 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) car occupants to rescue him and to take him to police station. In the evening he lodged report before the police, where his statement was recorded by the police. 10. PW-2, Manju Wala, in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on 23.05.1998, they were putting R.C.C. floor in the cowshed. Mast Ram was Mason and Jogiader was labourer engaged for the purpose. At about 4.30 P.M. accused Parveen and Rajinder came in the compound of their house and asked them as to whether the work was being carried out by them. Her husband replied in affirmative that the work was being carried out by them. On this, Parveen and Rajinder threatened that they would teach them a lesson. Rajinder was armed with a knife. Her husband went inside the house to make a call to the police. In the meantime, Rajinder and Parveen forcibly took the labourer Rajinder on a scooter. Accused Jagdish was going in a Maruti van to his house. Thereafter, she alongwith her husband and children, were standing on the road and after 5-7 minutes, a Van came from house of the accused Jagdish, in which, Parveen and Rajinder were sitting. Joginder was also inside the van and there was another person sitting in the van, who was not known to her. They rescued labourer Joginder from the clutches of the accused and thereafter Parveen etc. came out of the Van and started beating her 9 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) husband. In the meantime, the other accused Lohka, Roshan Lal, Kuldeep, Surinder, Anil and Nirmla Devi came there and started beating them with dandas. Thereafter, she went inside her house and telephonically informed her brother-in-law Surinder about the incident. Thereafter, her brother-in-law Surinder came to the spot after 10-15 minutes, and when he reached the compound, the accused Lohka, Kuldeep and Rakesh said that they would kill him. All the other accused attacked Surinder Singh with dandas and stones. Injuries were inflicted on his person. Surinder Singh fell unconscious, but the accused kept on beating him. Thereafter, Lohka Ram asked the other accused to burn Surinder Singh alive. Accused Nirmla Devi set on fire the fuel wood stacked in the compound of her house. The other accused dragged Surinder Singh and threw him into the fire, but she with the help of her children prevented the accused from throwing him into the fire. One leg and one arm of Surinder Singh got burnt in the fire and his face was also burnt in the fire. The accused had also inflicted injuries on her person, her husband and her daughter. Surinder was taken to Ghumarwin Hospital for his medical treatment, from where he was referred to Bilaspur Hospital and then to P.G.I. Chandigarh. 11. PW-3, Kumari Nisha, stated that on 23.05.1993 her 10 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) father had employed Mason Mast Ram and labourer Joginder for R.C.C. floor construction of cowshed in their village. At about 04:30 P.M., Parveen and Rajinder came at the spot and they asked her father as to whether he had started the R.C.C. work at the spot and her father replied in affirmative. Upon which, Rajinder took out a knife. Her father went inside the house to inform said fact to the police on telephone. In the meantime, Parveen and Rajinder had forcibly taken away the labourer Joginder. Thereafter, Jagdish Kumar came in a van and went to his house and the Van came after some time from the house of the accused. She alongwith her parents were standing on the road and the van also came there. They rescued labourer Joginder from the custody of accused. Jagdish alongwith Parveeen and Rajinder were in the van and one unknown person was also with them, who came out of the Van and started beating her father and also gave beatings to her and her mother. In the meantime, other accused Lohka and Kuldeep etc. also came to the spot and they also started beating them, with dandas. When they entered into the house to rescue themselves, accused Nirmla set on fire the fuel wood stacked in the court yard and field. Her mother informed her uncle Surinder Singh on telephone about the occurrence, who was at his shop at Ghumarwin. Subsequently, Surinder Singh came to the spot. 11 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) Lohka, Kuldeep, and Anil Kumar asked to kill Surinder and then Kuldeep, Surinder and all other accused started beating her uncle Surinder with dandas, stones, and bricks. Injuries were inflicted on the person of Surinder Kumar and blood had also started oozing from the injuries. Thereafter, he fell unconscious at the spot. The accused pushed Surinder Singh into the burning fuel wood and she alongwith her mother came out of the house and dragged Surinder Singh out of the fire. One side of Surinder Singh was burnt in the fire. The accused had also dragged them from their hair. She, her father, her mother, uncle Surinder Singh and her sister Neha had sustained injuries. 12. PW-6, Joginder Singh, deposed that on 23.05.1998, he alongwith Mast Ram, had been engaged to construct RCC floor by Ranbir in Village Naswal. They were carrying stones and putting RCC slab (floor) in the cowshed of Ranbir Singh. At about 4:30 P.M., accused Rajinder and Praveen came to the spot and slapped him 4-5 times. Thereafter, both the accused persons took him on a scooter to their home. After some time father of aforesaid accused persons came in a van and they made him to sit in the van and the van came towards Ghumarwin side. When they reached near the house of Ranbir, Ranbir alongwith his family members were standing on the road. Ranbir and his family members alighted him 12 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) from the van and set him free. 13. It is a settled position of law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 14. The perusal of the material available on record, reveals that all the accused persons have been charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435 & 323 of IPC. However, they have been convicted only for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 435, 325, read with Section 149 of IPC and they have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The present appeal has been filed by the State on the ground that learned trial Court has erred in law in not convicting the accused persons under Section 307 of IPC. 15. In backdrop of the rival submissions and evidence available on record, the point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the findings of the learned trial Court regarding acquittal of the accused persons under Section 307 of IPC is incorrect in the eyes of law and facts. At this stage, it would be relevant to 13 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) reproduce Section 307 of IPC, which reads as under:- “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned……….” 16. Accordingly in order to prove the offence under section 307 IPC, it is essential to prove that there was intention or knowledge coupled with some overt act in execution of such intention / knowledge. All the ingredients of the offence must be present before a conviction can be ordered. The injuries sustained, the manner of the assault and the weapons used are all relevant factors. The intention or knowledge which is foremost ingredient of section 307 of the IPC must precede the act attributed to the accused. This intention/knowledge has to be gathered from the circumstances and not necessarily from the ensuing results that follow, which may result in simple or grievous injury. 17. Viewed in this light, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined to consider whether the accused persons can be convicted under section 307 IPC on the basis of the evidence led in the present matter. The onus lies on the prosecution that the accused persons had caused an act with 14 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) intention/knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act death was caused, they would have been guilty of murder. 18. The case of the prosecution is that Surinder was called on the spot by PW-2, who telephonically informed him at Ghumarwin, where he was running a shop. He reached the spot within 10-15 minutes. As per PW-1, when Surinder reached there, accused Lohka Ram, Kuldeep Singh and Anil Kumar threatened him to kill and they attacked him, resultantly Surinder fell unconscious. PW-2 and PW-3 also stated that Surinder was pushed into the burning fire by the accused and it was then PW-1 and his family members who intervened to rescue him. As per medical reports, Ext. PW-19/A and Ext. PW-20/A, Surinder Singh had sustained grievous injuries in the occurrence and he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted w.e.f. 24.05.1998 to 26.05.1998. 19. Dr. A. Pathak, while appearing in the witness box as PW-19 has categorically deposed that Surinder was brought with the alleged history of being beaten by some unknown persons at 4:30 P.M. on 23.05.1998 and there was history of loss of consciousness, vomiting and bleeding from the right ear. The patient was treated conservatively by the neurosurgery and plastic surgery (for the burns) and was discharged being referred to 15 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) District Hospital on 26.05.1998. In cross-examination, this witness has categorically admitted that the patient was unconscious at the time of discharge and was not fit to make any statement. 20. PW-20, Dr. Vikas Mandial, had examined Surinder on 23.05.1998 and issued MLC, Ext. PW-20/A, wherein, it has been mentioned that injury No. 5 was grievous in nature and all other injuries were simple and in his opinion, the injuries suffered by Surinder were not dangerous to life. The prosecution has failed to examine any other specialist Doctor in order to prove that the injuries sustained by Surinder were dangerous to life. Therefore, in view of the statement of PW-20, it cannot be said that the injuries suffered by Surinder were dangerous to life. 21. It is well settled that if an act which is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the person, but the intention on the part of the accused is lacking, the act would not constitute an offence under Section 307 of IPC. The medical evidence has to be taken for determining the intention of the accused. Before it is held that the act committed by the accused amounts to attempt to murder, it should be satisfied that the act was committed with such intention or knowledge under such circumstances that if it had caused death, it would have amounted to murder. 22. In a recent case of Panchram vs. State of Chattisgarh & 16 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) Another reported in AIR 2023 SC 1801, the Hon'ble Apex has held as under:- "7. In his statement, the injured appearing as PW-1 submitted that when Munna (PW 6) shouted for help, Kantilal (PW 8) and Radheyshyam (PW 9) came there and seeing them the accused ran away. However, Kantilal (PW 8) was declared hostile. The prosecution had produced another witness Radhey Shyam (PW 7).He was also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Even the scissors which was seized by the police is small scissors which is used by tailors. With the aforesaid evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our view the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. From the reasons for fight as are emerging on record, it doesn't seem to be pre- planned act. It, at the most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326 IPC as a sharp-edged weapon was used. The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view the conviction of the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained however the offence under Section 326 IPC is made out………." 23. In the case on hand, as per the statement of PW-19, Dr. A. Pathak, Surinder was unconscious at the time of discharge and was not fit to make any statement. Therefore, his statement was not recorded by the police. The perusal of record further reveals that the Investigating Officer did not record his statement till his death i.e. on 12.01.2000 for the reasons best known to him. It is clear from the record that Section 307 of IPC was added only on the basis of the injuries suffered by Surinder and he was the most material witness. However, Surinder was never associated in the investigation by the police. PW-20, Dr. Vikas Mandial, had categorically deposed that that injury No. 5 was grievous in nature 17 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) and all other injuries were simple and in his opinion, the injuries suffered by Surinder were not dangerous to life. In our opinion,the allegations disclose a sudden altercation arising out of a pre- existing dispute and the alleged act cannot be construed as one reflecting a calculated or premeditated design to commit murder. The conduct attributed to the accused persons, at best reflects an impulsive act emanating from a momentary outburst rather than an assault imbued with the degree of intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 307 IPC. There is no medical opinion to establish the injury to be dangerous to life. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the injuries sustained by Surinder were dangerous to life. The injuries do not, by themselves, establish an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. Further, in view of the medical reports and the nature of the injuries, it cannot be ascertained that the accused persons had the intention to commit murder, or knowledge as to the fact that the injured would be killed by this injury. Having gone through the record and medical reports including the statements of witnesses, it is crystal clear that the injuries sustained by Surinder were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Under these circumstances, the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are missing 18 ( 2026:HHC:19997 ) in the present case. Hence, in our view, the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be said to be either illegal or contrary to law and the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused persons under Section 307 of IPC. 24. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no illegality, perversity and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, as such, the same is upheld. The present appeal deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge ( Virender Singh ) Judge 26th May, 2026 (raman) 19