Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 29 To October 4, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183Nominal Index:State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh .,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180State of H.P. v/s Soni and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 182Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183Himachal Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Convicts In Four-Year-Old Child's Murder CaseCase Name: State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176The Himachal Pradesh High Court commuted the death penalty awarded to Chander Sharma (26) and Vikrant Bakshi (22) in the 2014 Yug Gupta murder case, directing that they will serve life imprisonment “till their last breath.”The Court acquitted co-accused, Tejinder Pal Singh (29), of all charges, holding that the offences of kidnapping against Tejinder pal for ransom under Sections 364A and 347 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that: “The material on record does not show that the accused cannot be reformed, hence we are unable to confirm the death penalty imposed by the learned Trial Court despite our indignation towards the crime. The same is reduced to life imprisonment, which will mean the natural life of the convicts till their last breath.”Using MGNREGA Funds To Pay Skilled Employees Cannot Justify Denial Of Regularisation: HP High CourtCase Name: Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that MGNREGA is designed only for unskilled manual work, and cannot be used to deny regularization to skilled roles like Computer Operators.The Court observed that the State wrongly used MGNREGA funds to pay for skilled services despite having sanctioned posts.Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Unskilled manual work means any physical work which any adult person can do without special training. Petitioners, being skilled Computer Operators, could not have been assigned such work, but the State, noting the need for manpower, employed them and used MGNREGA funds to meet the expenditure.”Sub-Tenant Bound By Eviction Order If He Fails To Establish Direct Tenancy Under Landlord's Predecessor-In-Interest: HP High CourtCase Name: Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that if the sub-tenant fails to establish direct tenancy under landlord or predecessor-in-interest, the eviction order passed against tenant would be binding on them as well.Justice Satyen Vaidya remarked that: “The sub-tenant was not a necessary party to an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting, but since in the instant case the landlord herself had impleaded sub-tenant as a party, it could not be said that the sub-tenant was not the aggrieved party.”Date Of Passing Final Exam Relevant For Batch-Wise Recruitment, Not When Certificate Was Issued: HP High CourtCase Name: Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that for batch-wise recruitment, the year and month of passing the final examination must decide the candidate's batch and not the date on which the certificate was issued.Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that “…it is nowhere mentioned in the R&P Rules that date of issuance of certificate given in the certificate would be relevant, rather… relevant date would be the year and month of passing.”Inimical Relationship Between Victim & Accused Requires Cautious Evaluation: HP High Court Upholds Acquittal In Molestation CaseCase Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajesh KumarCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused in a molestation case, observing that when the victim submits that she does not have cordial relations with accused and was not on talking terms with him, her testimony requires greater caution.Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: “The informant admitted that she had an inimical relationship with the accused, and she was not on talking terms with the accused. Hence, her testimony was required to be seen with due care and caution, especially in view of the delay in reporting the matter to the police.”Preparing Joint Consent Memo To Search Both Accused Amounts To Violation Of Mandatory Requirement U/S 50 NDPS Act: HP High CourtCase Name: State of H.P. v/s Soni and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when two accused are searched under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, each must be individually informed of...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 29 To October 4, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags