[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Harilal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2618
Judgment Reserved on: 13.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on: 10.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021
Harilal ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence: Mr. Pooram Singh Rawat, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant
appearing through V.C.
Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellant, Harilal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, assailing the judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 passed
by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions
Trial No. 04 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2020,
whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 326
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of eight years each, along with fine of Rs. 5,000 on each
count, with default stipulations.
2. As per the case of the State, an incident is alleged to have
occurred on the night of 29.06.2020 at about 10:00 PM at Ukhimath,
District Rudraprayag, where the injured, namely Parmeshwar, along
with the Appellant and another person, was present in a room. It is
alleged that after having dinner, a dispute arose between the Appellant
and the injured over playing music on a mobile phone. The altercation
escalated, and it is alleged that the Appellant, in a fit of anger, inflicted
a knife blow on the abdomen of the injured and thereafter fled from the
spot.
1
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
3. It is further the case of the State that the injured was initially
taken to the Primary Health Centre at Ukhimath and thereafter referred
to higher medical centres in view of the seriousness of the injury. The
First Information Report came to be lodged on 30.06.2020 at about
13:15 hours at Police Station Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag. Upon
investigation, charge sheet came to be submitted against the Appellant
under Sections 307 and 326 IPC.
4. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed,
and charges were framed accordingly. The State, in order to bring home
the guilt of the Appellant, examined the injured witness and other
prosecution witnesses, including witnesses relating to recovery and
investigation. The defence of the Appellant, as emerges from the record,
was one of denial and false implication.
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial
court recorded a finding of conviction against the Appellant under
Sections 307 and 326 IPC and imposed the aforesaid sentence, which is
under challenge in the present appeal.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the Appellant submits that
the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities and the
conviction recorded by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.
7. It is contended that the case of the State rests primarily upon the
testimony of the injured witness; however, the same is not wholly
reliable. It is submitted that in his cross-examination, the injured has
made material statements indicating that the expenses of his treatment
were borne by the family of the Appellant and that he does not wish to
2
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
pursue action against him. According to learned Counsel, these aspects
create doubt regarding the prosecution version.
8. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of the weapon of
offence is doubtful inasmuch as the independent witness of recovery
has not supported the case of the State. In the absence of reliable
recovery, the connection between the alleged weapon and the Appellant
remains unestablished.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that there is delay
in lodging the First Information Report, which has not been
satisfactorily explained, thereby affecting the credibility of the
prosecution case.
10. It is also urged that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC
are not made out. It is submitted that the incident arose out of a sudden
quarrel without any premeditation, and only a single blow is alleged to
have been inflicted. It is argued that in such circumstances, intention to
cause death cannot be attributed to the Appellant.
11. It is lastly contended that the learned trial court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded findings which are
contrary to the material available, and therefore, the Appellant is
entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State supports the
impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and recorded a well-reasoned
finding of conviction.
3
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
13. It is submitted that the testimony of the injured witness is cogent,
consistent, and trustworthy. The presence of the injured at the place of
occurrence is not in dispute, and his testimony clearly attributes the role
of inflicting injury to the Appellant.
14. Learned Counsel for the State further submits that the medical
evidence corroborates the ocular version and establishes that the injury
sustained by the injured was caused by a sharp-edged weapon and was
of a serious nature.
15. It is contended that minor discrepancies or omissions do not
affect the substratum of the case of the State. The non-support of the
recovery witness, according to learned Counsel, is not fatal in the
presence of direct evidence of the injured witness.
16. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, it is submitted that
the same stands sufficiently explained as the immediate concern was to
provide medical aid to the injured, who was referred to higher medical
centres.
17. Learned Counsel for the State thus submits that the conviction
recorded by the learned trial court does not warrant interference and the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
18. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the entire lower court record with due care.
19. The present appeal arises from a conviction recorded by the
learned trial court under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. The principal
question for consideration is whether, on the basis of the evidence
4
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
available on record, the conviction under Section 307 IPC is
sustainable, and whether the findings recorded by the learned trial court
call for interference in appellate jurisdiction.
20. The case of the State is founded primarily upon the testimony of
the injured witness. The evidentiary value of an injured witness is well
settled. His presence at the place of occurrence ordinarily cannot be
doubted, and his testimony is entitled to great weight. However, such
testimony must still inspire confidence and must be assessed in light of
the surrounding circumstances.
21. In the present case, the injured witness has supported the case of
the State insofar as the occurrence and the role attributed to the
Appellant are concerned. However, certain aspects emerging from his
cross-examination assume significance. The injured has admitted that
the expenses of his treatment were borne by the family members of the
Appellant and that he does not wish to pursue action against him.
Though such statements do not by themselves demolish the case of the
State, they do introduce an element of caution in evaluating his
testimony.
22. The alleged recovery of the weapon of offence also does not
inspire confidence. The independent witness to the recovery has not
supported the case of the State. In such circumstances, the recovery
cannot be said to have been proved in a reliable manner. The
evidentiary value of the alleged weapon is, therefore, considerably
weakened.
23. As regards the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the
incident is stated to have taken place in the night and the FIR was
5
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
lodged on the next day. The explanation offered is that the injured was
taken for medical treatment and referred to higher centres. In the facts
of the case, such delay stands reasonably explained and is not fatal to
the case of the State.
24. Coming to the nature of the occurrence, it is evident from the
record that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel between the
Appellant and the injured over a trivial issue relating to playing music.
There is no material to suggest any premeditation on the part of the
Appellant.
25. It is also not in dispute that the case pertains to a single blow.
There is no allegation of repeated assault. The circumstances in which
the incident occurred are, therefore, of considerable relevance in
determining the applicability of Section 307 IPC.
26. The essential ingredient of Section 307 IPC is the intention or
knowledge to cause death. The nature of the weapon used, the part of
the body targeted, and the circumstances in which the act was
committed are all relevant factors in determining the existence of such
intention.
27. In the present case, although the injury is on a vital part of the
body and is caused by a sharp-edged weapon, the surrounding
circumstances, namely the sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation,
and the fact that only a single blow was inflicted, do not conclusively
establish the intention or knowledge required to bring the act within the
ambit of Section 307 IPC.
28. The learned trial court appears to have placed undue emphasis on
the nature of the injury and the weapon used, without adequately
6
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
considering the surrounding circumstances and the mental element
necessary to constitute the offence under Section 307 IPC.
29. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the State has
not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant
had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. Consequently,
the conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable
to be set aside.
30. However, the factum of injury and the role of the Appellant in
causing such injury stand clearly established. The testimony of the
injured witness, to the extent it attributes the act to the Appellant, is
corroborated by the medical evidence, which shows that the injury was
caused by a sharp-edged weapon and is of a serious nature.
31. Even in the absence of reliable recovery, the ocular testimony of
the injured witness, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to
establish that the Appellant caused grievous hurt by means of a sharp
weapon.
32. The offence, therefore, clearly falls within the ambit of Section
326 IPC. The conviction recorded by the learned trial court under
Section 326 IPC does not suffer from any infirmity and is liable to be
affirmed.
33. As regards the sentence, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the sudden nature of the quarrel
and absence of premeditation, this Court is of the view that the sentence
awarded under Section 326 IPC warrants modification.
7
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2618
ORDER
34. The appeal is partly allowed.
35. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 IPC, as
recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated
09.09.2021, is set aside.
36. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 326 IPC is
affirmed.
37. The sentence awarded to the Appellant under Section 326 IPC is
modified to the period already undergone.
38. The fine imposed by the learned trial court shall remain unaltered.
39. The Appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
10.04.2026
Arti
Criminal Jail Appeal No.63 of 2021, Harilal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-------
Ashish Naithani J.
