2026:HHC:7877 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …….Petitioner Versus Piar Chand & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General For the Respondents: Ms. Shashi Kiran, Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Aman Hansretta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to impugned order dated 18.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MA No.553 of 2023 in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2021, whereby an application Under Section 319 Cr.P.C filed by the prosecution seeking to arraign one Bhagat Ram as an accused in the case, as detailed hereinabove, came to be dismissed. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:7877 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that person, namely Piar Chand i.e. main accused is facing trial on the allegations that he was found to have cultivated opium plants in his kitchen garden, near his cowshed, abutting to his house. 3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as nine witnesses. One of the witnesses, namely Bhagat Ram, who otherwise happened to be father of the accused, was examined on 12.07.2023 as PW-9. Since afore witness during his cross- examination deposed that the land on which the plants had been found sown, was in his ownership and cultivation, and cowshed and the flower bed seen in photographs Ex.PW2/A-4 and Ex.PW2/A-5, respectively, belong to him, prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for arraigning aforesaid Bhagat Ram as an accused. However, the application came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 18.01.2024. In the afore background, petitioner-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid impugned order and allow the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for impleadment of Bhagat Ram as an accused. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner-State as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is that Court below while 3 2026:HHC:7877 passing the impugned order failed to take note of candid admission made at the behest of the person sought to be arraigned as an accused to the effect that the land on which the opium plants were found to have been cultivated was in his ownership. He states that once afore person himself admitted factum with regard to his possession and cultivation, he was required to be arraigned as an accused. However, learned Court below taking hyper technical view proceeded to reject the application. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that since person proposed to be arraigned as an accused misguided the investigation by stating that the land, including the flower bed, was being cultivated by his son Piar Chand, prosecution wrongly lodged case against main accused Piar Chand. 5. To the contrary, counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2, while supporting the impugned order passed by learned Court below, vehemently argued that no witness can be compelled to depose against himself. While referring to protection granted to an accused under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel representing the respondents further argued that a witness enjoys immunity from prosecution, even if his testimony in the court is found to be inculpatory. While praying for dismissal of the petition at hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that impugned order passed by learned Court below is based upon proper 4 2026:HHC:7877 appreciation of section 132 of Indian Evidence Act as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material adduced on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General , rather this Court finds that learned Court below properly appreciated the provisions contained under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as law regarding self incrimination embodied in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 7. True it is that during cross-examination person sought to be arraigned as accused deposed that the land on which the plants had been found sown was in his ownership and cultivation, but such admission, if any, cannot be a basis to array him as an accused. 8. At this juncture, it would be apt to take note of Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, herein below:- “132.A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may lend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any 5 2026:HHC:7877 kind; Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer”. Article 20(3):No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 9. Conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that witness in a case, enjoys an immunity from prosecution, he or she cannot be prosecuted even if his/her testimony in the court is found to be inculpatory. Needless to say, word “evidence” used in Section 319 Cr.P.C contemplates and includes the evidence of a witness given in the Court, but statement given by the witness can only be used against third person and certainly not against himself in view of the embargo created by the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, attempted to argue that provision contained under aforesaid provision of law shall not come in the rescue of the petitioner because there is nothing to suggest that person sought to be arraigned as an accused was compelled to make statement against him. However, this Court is 6 2026:HHC:7877 not persuaded to agree with the aforesaid submission made by learned Additional Advocate General. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Dinesh Kumar @ Deena vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police 2015 (7) SCC, 497 has categorically held that the testimony of a prosecution witness at the trial and the incriminating answers given by him, amount to compelled testimony falling within the sweep of Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act and protected by proviso thereto. Hon'ble Apex Court in afore judgment observed that once the prosecution chooses to examine a witness, the latter is bound to answer every question put to him and in that sense is under compulsion to respond to the question. If in the process, the answers given by the witness are self incriminatory, he cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his deposition, in view of the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. Leaving everything aside, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India clearly provides that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. None of the prosecution witnesses save and except respondent has stated anything specific with regard to ownership and possession of the petitioner qua the land allegedly used for cultivation of opium. Had any of the prosecution witnesses stated anything with regard to ownership and possession of the petitioner herein qua the land used for cultivation of 7 2026:HHC:7877 opium, prosecution was well within its right to file application under Section 319 Cr.P.C to arraign petitioner as an additional accused in the present case, but certainly he cannot be made an accused on the basis of the statement/admission, if any, made by him during trial. 13. In this regard reliance is placed upon recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank and Another, Criminal Appeal No(s). 2764 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3419 of 2024), decided on September 10, 2024. Relevant para of the judgment is as under: “11. In order to have clear understanding of the sweep and import of the provisions contained in Section 132 of the Act and the proviso, in particular, it is necessary to dwell on the principle on which the provision is introduced in the statute. 12. The proviso to Section 132 of the Act is based on the maxim nemo Tenetur prodere seipsum i.e. no one is bound to criminate himself and to place himself in peril. In this regard the law in England, (with certain exceptions) is that a witness need not answer any question, the tendency of which is to expose the witness, or to feed hand of the witness, to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture6. The privilege is based on the princi- ple of encouraging all persons to come forward with evidence, by protecting them, as far as possible, from injury or needless annoyance in conse- quence of so doing7. This absolute privilege, in some cases tended to bring about a failure of justice, for the allowance of the excuse, particularly when the matter to which the question related was in the knowledge solely of the witness, deprived the court of the information which was essential to its ar- riving at a right decision. 13. In order to avoid this inconvenience, Section 132 of the Act, withdrew this absolute privilege and affords only a qualified privilege. The witness is 8 2026:HHC:7877 deprived of the privilege of claiming excuse from testifying altogether; but, while subjecting him to compulsion, the legislature, in order to remove any inducement to falsehood, declared that evidence so obtained should not be used against him, except for the purpose in the Act declared. 14. It must also be borne in mind that the proviso to Section 132 of the Act is also an extension of the protection enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which confers a fundamental right that “no person ac- cused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. Under the constitutional scheme, the right is available only to a person who is accused of an offence, the proviso to Section 132 of the Act, in exten- sion, creates a statutory immunity in favour of a witness who in the process of giving evidence in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding makes a statement which criminates himself. It is settled that the proviso to Section 132 of the Act is a necessary corollary to the principle enshrined under Ar- ticle 20(3) of the Constitution of India which confers a fundamental right that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”8. 15. A perusal of the legislative history would reveal that the object of the law is to secure evidence which could not have been obtained. The pur- pose for granting such a statutory immunity was to enable the court to reach a just conclusion (and thus assisting the process of law).” 14. Not only this, there are various other verdicts of Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizing the protection guaranteed to an accused by Art. 20(3) of the Constitution and further manifested in S.132 of the Evidence Act, to the effect that no accused can be forced to be a witness against his own self. This principle also operates vice-versa in the sense that a person, who has given testimony in a case, cannot be made an accused on the basis of said deposition, reason being that no evidence is withheld and same is produced before court 9 2026:HHC:7877 without any fear. Therefore, this protection has been granted to a witness. 15. Though, at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the respondent can be booked under Section 120B IPC (now S.61 BNS), but for that corroborative evidence is required against a person. However, so far issue at hand is concerned, the testimony of respondent cannot be used to array him as an accused, as it would be against the very scheme of the Constitution and the Evidence Act. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MA No.553 of 2023 in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2021 and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 17, 2026 (shankar)