The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that mere use of abusive language does not meet the threshold for conviction under Section 504 IPC unless it is shown to intentionally provoke breach of peace, following the latest Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court has clarified the evidentiary standard for contradicting witnesses and reiterated the reliability of police and related witnesses, narrowing the scope for routine interference under revisional jurisdiction. This decision holds binding authority for all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh and persuasive value in other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.R/517/2024 of LEKH RAM AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HP |
| CNR | HPHC010354182024 |
| Date of Registration | 08-08-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Partly Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedents on Sections 342 & 504 IPC, witness evaluation |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC, Evidence Act, CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that mere use of abusive language, even if offensive, does not by itself satisfy the requirements of Section 504 IPC; there must be an intentional insult with provocation or likelihood of breach of peace, as specified in Supreme Court judgments. For contradictions, attention of the witness must explicitly be drawn to previous statements in cross-examination, and only proved contradictions/omissions can be used to impeach credibility. The testimony of police and related witnesses, if found reliable and trustworthy, cannot be discarded solely on the ground of absence of independent witnesses. Revisional powers are limited and not equivalent to appellate review; interference is justified only in cases of perversity or legal error. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022); State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023); Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012); Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018); Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023); Vikram Johar v. State of U.P. (2019); Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra (2013); Alauddin v. State of Assam (2024); Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024); Budh Ram v. State of H.P. (2020); Karamjit Singh v. State (2003); Sathyan v. State of Kerala (2023); Laltu Ghosh v. State of W.B. (2019); Thoti Manohar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012); Pohlu v. State of Haryana (2005); Rajesh Yadav v. State of Bihar (2022); etc. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on settled Supreme Court interpretation of Section 504 IPC, emphasising intentional insult and provocation; drawn on evidence law (contradictions, Section 145 Evidence Act), rules for hostile and related witnesses, and the narrow revisional scope under Section 397 CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The accused were convicted under Sections 342 and 504 IPC for allegedly confining and abusing the informant, a relative, during a land dispute. Police found the informant locked in a room, opened by the accused. The case largely relied on witnesses related to the informant and official witnesses; trial and appellate courts convicted the accused. On revision, the High Court re-examined whether the ingredients for Section 504 IPC were met and addressed the evidentiary challenges raised. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022); Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023); Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra (2013); State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001), etc. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates and clarifies that conviction under Section 504 IPC requires intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace, not mere abusive language.
- Reinforces that attention must be drawn to specific parts of prior statements when attempting to impeach a witness’s credibility (Section 145 Evidence Act; Section 162 CrPC)—mere existence of a contradictory prior version is insufficient without proper procedure.
- Affirms that reliable testimony from police and related/interested witnesses is valid even absent independent witness corroboration, if no material doubts arise.
- Revisional courts cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn concurrent factual findings absent perversity, legal error, or miscarriage of justice.
- Provides clear parameters for impeachment of hostile witnesses and explains degree of reliance upon their testimony post-contradiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by outlining the very limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, quoting Supreme Court authority (Malkeet Singh Gill, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, Amit Kapoor).
- Rehearing evidence or substituting a new factual finding is not proper unless the lower courts’ order suffers from legal perversity, patent error, or procedural lapse.
- The court addressed submissions regarding contradiction between the informant’s oral and earliest police statement by strictly applying the law: unless the witness’s attention has been pointedly drawn to the specific contradictory statement (Section 145, Evidence Act; Alauddin v. State of Assam), such contradictions cannot be used against her.
- The court reviewed Supreme Court precedents (Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., Vikram Johar v. State of U.P., Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana) holding that not all abusive language meets the threshold for Section 504 IPC; actual intentional insult coupled with provocation that could induce breach of peace is essential.
- On assessment of police and related/interested witnesses, the judgment relies upon Budh Ram v. State of H.P., Karamjit Singh v. State, Laltu Ghosh v. State of W.B., M Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and others: law prescribes scrutinising but not mechanically discarding their testimony.
- Hostile witnesses’ testimony is not effaced from record; its credible portions can be acted upon if corroborated (Selvamani v. State, Sat Paul v. Delhi Adm).
- Lack of independent witnesses and non-examination of all cited witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution case (Pohlu v. State of Haryana, Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P.) if those essential examined witnesses are credible.
- Ultimately, the court found the evidence sufficient for wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC) but not for the intentional insult and provocation required under Section 504 IPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Courts below failed to appreciate evidence properly; prosecution relied upon statements of interested/related witnesses.
- No independent witnesses were examined despite their presence.
- Contradictions exist in prosecution witnesses’ statements.
- Informant’s earliest complaint to police did not allege confinement but beating; thus, wrongful confinement charge is suspect.
- Wall over which dispute arose was on petitioners’ land; case is false and fabricated.
- Benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was not given; sentence is harsh.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the findings and sentences of courts below.
- No ground for interference with the conviction and sentence.
- Testimony of official and related witnesses is credible; version consistent.
Factual Background
The case arose from a land dispute between the informant and the accused, who are relatives. On the date of the incident, the informant was allegedly confined by the accused in a room in her house after an argument regarding damage to property, with the lock procured and placed by the accused. Upon her call, the police responded and found the informant locked inside, which was documented with photos and recovery of the lock and key. FIR was registered under Sections 342 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. Trial and appellate courts convicted the accused on both counts.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 504 IPC: The court carefully analysed the essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC using Supreme Court precedents. The section requires intentional insult (actus reus) and such provocation as to cause (or likely to cause) breach of peace (mens rea). Mere abuse, discourtesy, or rudeness, without the requisite intent and provocation, does not suffice. Intent and likely effect—judged by the standard of a reasonable person—are vital.
- Section 342 IPC: Wrongful confinement established through direct evidence, corroborated by the police and recovery of lock and key.
- Section 145 of Evidence Act / Section 162 CrPC: Contradicting a witness with a prior statement requires drawing specific attention to the relevant part of the statement during cross-examination. Omission to do so renders such contradiction inadmissible.
- Revisional Jurisdiction (Section 397 CrPC): Jurisdiction is supervisory and limited; not a platform for full factual re-evaluation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and clarifies existing Supreme Court and High Court law on (i) Section 504 IPC, (ii) evaluation of related/interested and official witnesses, and (iii) the correct method for impeaching witnesses via contradictions.