S.324 IPC | Nature Of Victim's Wound & Cut Clothing Clearly Establish Assault, Not Accidental Fall: Himachal Pradesh High Court
In a case under Section 324 IPC, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the injury sustained by the victim in the case, and the condition of his clothing, clearly disproved the accused's claim that the wound resulted from an accidental fall.Further, the Court observed that according to the medical and forensic evidence, the wound on the victim's shoulder made it evident that it was due...
In a case under Section 324 IPC, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the injury sustained by the victim in the case, and the condition of his clothing, clearly disproved the accused's claim that the wound resulted from an accidental fall.
Further, the Court observed that according to the medical and forensic evidence, the wound on the victim's shoulder made it evident that it was due to an attack by a sharp-edged weapon, which ruled out the possibility of injury due to an accident.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The report of this witness and the statement of the Medical Officer clearly show that the clothes were also cut during the incident. This would rule out the possibility of sustaining injury by way of a fall.”
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, with penalties including imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. The "dangerous means" include instruments for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or anything that could cause death or serious injury, such as fire, poison, or explosives. The offence is non-bailable.
Background:
The case arose in 2007 when two witnesses, Puran Chand and Padma Devi, had gone to another village to extend invitations. It was alleged that the accused met them on the way and assaulted Puran Chand with a sharp edged agricultural tool.
After evaluation of witnesses, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC, holding that even though the injury was serious, it did not amount to an attempt to murder.
Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court, contending that the statements of prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions.
Relying on the Supreme Court's Judgement in Rajan V. State of Haryana 2025, the Court reiterated that “The presence of an injured eyewitness… cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions.”
Thus, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial court.
Case Name: Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others
Case No.: CWP No. 1834 of 2018
Date of Decision: 10.10.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur and Mr. Udit
Shaurya Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocates
General and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva and Ms Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocates General for the State.
Mr. Lokender Thakur, Senior Penal Counsel, for respondent No.3.