25.02.2026 vs Of on 16 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 25.02.2026 vs Of on 16 March, 2026

                                                                                       2026:HHC:7170

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                              Cr. Revision No.436 of 2015




                                                                                   .
                                              Reserved on: 25.02.2026





                                              Date of Decision: 16.03.2026.

    State of H.P.                                                                    ...Petitioner





                                            Versus




                                                    of
    Mohan Lal                                                                     ...Respondent

    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
                        rt
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

    For the Petitioner/State                    :     Mr   Prashant    Sen,                  Deputy

                                                      Advocate General
    For the Respondent                          :     Mr Karan            Sharma,        Advocate,
                                                      vice   Mr            Atharv         Sharma,


                                                      Advocate.


    Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment

dated 12.03.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (Circuit Court at Nurpur) (learned

Appellate Court), vide which the judgment dated 25.03.2010 passed

by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Nurpur,

District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (Parties shall

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS

Page |2
2026:HHC:7170

hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed

before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned

Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence

punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It

of
was asserted that the victim is the informant’s son. The victim

was aged 6 years and was studying in class two. The informant left
rt
his home to purchase medicine for his wife on 11.06.2009. He

returned to his home and found that his sons were not present. He

searched for them. The victim met him on the way, and he was

crying. The informant asked the victim about the reason for

crying, and he replied that the accused had taken him to a mango

orchard and had sexually penetrated his anus. The informant

asked the accused as to why he had done so. The accused

assaulted the informant. The informant narrated the incident to

the Ward Punch, Ram Lal (PW-1). He also narrated the incident to

Pardhan, Sat Pal(PW-6), who expressed his inability to do

anything in the matter. The informant went to the police station

and reported the matter to the police. The police registered the

F.I.R. (Ext.PW-2/A). Inspector/SHO Kamljeet Singh (PW-11) filed

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
Page |3
2026:HHC:7170

an application (Ext.PW-11/A) for medical examination of the

victim. Dr Shiv Darshan Singh (PW-12) examined the victim and

.

found abrasion marks in the perianal region. He sealed the

victim’s knickers and handed it over to the police official

accompanying the victim. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW-12/A).

Inspector/SHO Kamaljeet (PW-11) went to the spot and prepared

of
the site plan (Ext.PW-11/B). He arrested the accused and filed an

application (Ext.PW-11/D) for medical examination of the accused.

rt
Dr Ashutosh Joshi (PW-5) examined the accused and found that

there was nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of

performing sexual intercourse. He issued the report

(Ext. PW-5/A). He preserved the pants of the accused, sealed it in a

parcel and handed over the parcel to the police official

accompanying the accused. The case property was sent to SFSL,

Junga, and the result (Ext.PA) was issued, stating that human

blood was found on the victim’s knickers. Suresh Kumar (PW-4)

issued an age certificate (Ext.PW-4/A) of the accused.

Inspector/SHO Kamaljeet Singh (PW-11) filed an application

(Ext.PW-11/E) for obtaining the birth certificate of the victim. Raj

Kumar (PW-7) issued the birth certificate (Ext.PW-7/A).

Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
Page |4
2026:HHC:7170

after completion of the investigation, the challan was was

prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to

summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged

with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 377

of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

of

4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its

case. Ram Lal (PW-1) was the Ward Punch to whom the incident
rt
was narrated. The victim’s father (PW-2) and mother (PW-3)

were told about the incident. Suresh Kumar (PW-4) issued the

birth certificate of the accused Mohan Lal. Dr Ashutosh Joshi

(PW-5) medically examined the accused. Sat Pal (PW-6) was the

Pardhan. Raj Kumar (PW-7) issued the victim’s birth certificate.

The victim (PW-8) narrated the incident. HC Bir Singh (PW-9)

was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited.

HHC Ranjeet Singh (PW-10) carried the case property to SFSL

Junga. Inspector Kamaljeet (PW-11) investigated the matter. Dr

Shiv Darshan Singh (PW-12) examined the victim.

5. The accused, in his statement, recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
Page |5
2026:HHC:7170

claimed that he was innocent, and witnesses deposed against him

because of the enmity. He did not produce any evidence in his

.

defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the victim admitted in his

cross-examination that he was making the statement at his

father’s instance. Dr Shiv Darshan (PW-12) admitted that the

of
injury noticed by him could be caused by scratching the anus with

the finger. The relationship between the victim’s father and the

accused was
rt strained. They had civil litigation. Sat Pal

(PW-6), Pardhan, had asked the father of the accused to keep

forty bags of cement, but he declined, which led to the

deterioration of the relationship between the victim’s father and

Sat Pal. The parcel produced before the Court did not have a legible

seal impression, and the integrity of the case property was not

established; hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused

of the charged offence.

7 Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned

Trial Court, the State filed an appeal which was decided by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P.

(learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
Page |6
2026:HHC:7170

with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the

victim’s testimony was not reliable. He admitted that he was

.

tutored by his father. The Medical Officer admitted that the injury

noticed by him could have been caused by scratching the anus.

Learned Trial Court was justified in doubting the prosecution’s

case; hence, the appeal was dismissed.

of

8. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by the

learned Courts below, the State has filed the present revision
rt
asserting that the learned Courts below failed to properly

appreciate the statements of the victim and his father. These

statements proved the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable

doubt. They were corroborated by the medical evidence.

Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and

the judgments passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

9. I have heard Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the petitioner-State and Mr Karan Sharma, learned

vice counsel representing the respondent/accused.

10. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for

the petitioner-State, submitted that the learned Courts below

erred in appreciating the evidence on record. The victim’s

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
Page |7
2026:HHC:7170

testimony proved the prosecution’s case. His testimony was

corroborated by the testimonies of his father, Ward Punch and

.

Pardhan. Learned Courts below rejected the statements of

prosecution witnesses because of the enmity, but the enmity is a

double-edged weapon: while it furnishes a motive for false

implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of a

of
crime. In the present case, enmity furnished a motive for the

commission of the crime. Therefore, he prayed that the present
rt
revision be allowed and the judgments passed by the learned

courts below be set aside.

11. Mr Karan Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel representing

the respondent/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below

have properly appreciated the material on record. They have

rightly held that the victim was tutored and his testimony could

not be accepted. There is no infirmity in the findings recorded by

the learned Courts below, and this Court should not interfere with

the concurrent findings of fact. Therefore, he prayed that the

present revision be dismissed.

12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS

Page |8
2026:HHC:7170

13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204: (2022)

.

3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that the revisional court is

not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect,

errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed at page 207: –

“10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at
the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent

of
findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a
detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought
on record. The High Court in criminal revision against
rt
conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like
the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision
is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure

Code (in short “CrPC“) vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the
regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The

object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded
error which is to be determined on the merits of individual

cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same,
the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts

and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.

14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v.

Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was

observed:

“13. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under
Section 397 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to
call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity
of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
Page |9
2026:HHC:7170

provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept into
such proceedings. It would be apposite to refer to the
judgment of this court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra,

.

(2012) 9 SCC 460, where the scope of Section 397 has been

considered and succinctly explained as under:

“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an

inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to
the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set

of
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law.
There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not
be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
rtwhich, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in accordance with the
law. If one looks into the various judgments of this

Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can
be invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no

evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These
are not exhaustive classes but are merely indicative.

Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.

13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt

restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the
question as to whether the charge has been framed properly
and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be
reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 10
2026:HHC:7170

categories aforestated. Even the framing of a charge is a
much-advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.”

15. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC

.

165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC OnLine

SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate

the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any

perversity. It was observed at page 169:

of
“12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of
Sections 397/401 CrPC and the grounds for exercising the
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v.

rt
Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452:

1999 SCC (Cri) 275, while considering the scope of the

revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has laid
down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)

5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call
for and examine the record of any proceedings for the

purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality
or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other
words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction

exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage
of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be

equated with the power of an appellate court, nor can it
be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction.

Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the

High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its
own conclusion on the same when the evidence has
already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the
Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is
brought to the notice of the High Court which would
otherwise tantamount to a gross miscarriage of justice.
On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High
Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 11
2026:HHC:7170

Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the
conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral
evidence. …”

13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and

.

relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke,
(2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19. This Court held that
the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction,

shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it
is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-
consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be

of
set aside merely on the ground that another view is
possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC
p. 135)
“14. … Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
rt
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any

relevant material or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting
aside the order, merely because another view is possible.
The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate

court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is
to preserve the power in the court to do justice in
accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to
401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal.

Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought
to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law
or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or

where the decision is based on no material or where the
material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the
courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of
their revisional jurisdiction.”

14. In the above case, also a conviction of the accused was
recorded, and the High Court set aside [Dattatray Gulabrao
Phalke v. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom
1753] the order of conviction by substituting its own view.

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS

P a g e | 12
2026:HHC:7170

This Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its
views, and that too without any legal basis.

16. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh

.

Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ)

309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205:

“16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

of
Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity,
upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional
Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.

17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v.
rt
Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457, it is
a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court

will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court
having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error.
The answer to the first question is, therefore, in the
negative.”

17. The present revision has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18. The victim is the only witness to the incident. The

learned Courts below rejected his testimony on the ground that he

was tutored. Hence, it is necessary to re-appreciate his statement.

19. The victim stated that he knew the accused. The

accused had sexually penetrated his anus. He cried, but nobody

came, and he did not narrate the incident to any person. He was

permitted to be cross-examined as he had resiled from his earlier

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 13
2026:HHC:7170

statement. He admitted that he and his brother were present at

home. He denied that the accused came to his home and told him

.

to accompany him to the mango orchard. He denied that he had

accompanied the accused to the orchard. He admitted that the

accused removed his knickers in the orchard and sexually

penetrated his anus. He admitted that he cried, and his anus

of
started bleeding. He admitted that he came to the house, and he

was crying. He admitted that his father met him on the way and
rt
he had narrated the incident to him. He admitted that his father

had taken him to the Police Station and hospital. He stated in his

cross-examination by the defence that his father was present in

the Court. He admitted that he was making the statement at the

instance of his father that the accused had taken him to the

orchard where he (accused) had removed his knickers and sexually

penetrated his anus.

20. The statement made by the victim in the cross-

examination that he was making the statement at his father’s

instance that the accused had taken him to the orchard where he

(the accused) had removed his knickers and sexually penetrated

his anus shows that he was tutored to state this fact. It was laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhagan Dame v. State of

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 14
2026:HHC:7170

Gujarat, 1995 SCC (Cri) 182, that where a child witness is found to

be tutored, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It was

.

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Digamber Vaishnav v.

State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 300: 2019

SCC OnLine SC 316 that evidence of a child witness must be

evaluated carefully, as the child may be swayed by what others tell

of
him and he is an easy prey to tutoring. It was observed at page

529:

rt

22. This Court has consistently held that evidence of a child
witness must be evaluated carefully, as the child may be

swayed by what others tell him, and he is an easy prey to
tutoring. Therefore, the evidence of a child witness must
find adequate corroboration before it can be relied upon. It
is more a rule of practical wisdom than law.

[See Panchhi v. State of U.P. [Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7
SCC 177: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1561], State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit [State
of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit, (2000) 3 SCC 70: 2000 SCC (Cri) 579]

and State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash [State of
Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745: 2002 SCC (Cri)

1210].]

21. This position was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Balveer

Singh, (2025) 8 SCC 545: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 390, wherein it was

observed at page 587:

“43. From the above exposition of law, it is clear that the
evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be
on the same footing as any other witness, as long as the
child is found to be competent to testify. The only
precaution which the court should take while assessing the

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 15
2026:HHC:7170

evidence of a child witness is that such a witness must be a
reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by their
falling prey to tutoring. However, this in no manner means
that the evidence of a child must be rejected outrightly at

.

the slightest of discrepancy, rather what is required is that

the same is evaluated with great circumspection. While
appreciating the testimony of a child witness, the courts are
required to assess whether the evidence of such a witness is

its voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence
of others, and whether the testimony inspires confidence. At
the same time, one must be mindful that there is no rule

of
requiring corroboration to the testimony of a child witness
before any reliance is placed on it. The insistence of
corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence
that the courts may exercise if deemed necessary in the
rt
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

******

67.10. The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored
if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of
someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has
been any tutoring of a witness, the same may possibly

produce two broad effects in their testimony: (i)
improvisation or (ii) fabrication.

(i) Improvisation in testimony whereby facts have been
altered, or new details are added inconsistent with the

version of events not previously stated, must be
eradicated by first confronting the witness with that part

of its previous statement that omits or contradicts the
improvisation by bringing it to its notice and giving the

witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the
omission or contradiction. If such omission or
contradiction is admitted, there is no further need to
prove the contradiction. If the witness denies the
omission or contradiction, the same has to be proved in
the deposition of the investigating officer by proving that
part of the police statement of the witness in question.

Only thereafter, may the improvisation be discarded
from evidence or such omission or contradiction be

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 16
2026:HHC:7170

relied upon as evidence in terms of Section 11 of the
Evidence Act.

(ii) Whereas the evidence of a child witness which is
alleged to be doctored or tutored in toto, then such

.

evidence may be discarded as unreliable only if the

presence of the following two factors has to be
established being as under:

▪ Opportunity of tutoring of the child witness in

question–whereby certain foundational facts
suggesting or demonstrating the probability that a
part of the testimony of the witness might have been

of
tutored have to be established. This may be done
either by showing that there was a delay in recording
the statement of such a witness or that the presence
of such a witness was doubtful, or by imputing any
rt
motive on the part of such a witness to depose falsely,
or the susceptibility of such a witness in falling prey

to tutoring. However, a mere bald assertion that there
is a possibility of the witness in question being
tutored is not sufficient.

▪ Reasonable likelihood of tutoring–wherein the

foundational facts suggesting a possibility of
tutoring, as established, have to be further proven or
cogently substantiated. This may be done by leading

evidence to prove a strong and palpable motive to
depose falsely, or by establishing that the delay in

recording the statement is not only unexplained but
indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice or
by proving that the witness fell prey to tutoring and

was influenced by someone else either by cross-
examining such witness at length that leads to either
material discrepancies or contradictions, or exposes a
doubtful demeanour of such witness rife with sterile
repetition and confidence-lacking testimony, or
through such degree of incompatibility of the version
of the witness with the other material on record and
attending circumstances that negates their presence
as unnatural.”

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS

P a g e | 17
2026:HHC:7170

22. In the present case, the victim admitted that he was

.

making the statement regarding sexual penetration at his father’s

instance. This is the core of the prosecution’s case, and any

admission regarding tutoring of the core of the prosecution’s case

will make the prosecution’s case doubtful.

of

23. The informant admitted in his cross-examination that

the accused is the son of Bansi. He admitted he had partition
rt
proceedings pending against Bansi. He admitted that Sat Pal

(PW-6) had a dispute with the father of the accused. Thus, the

learned Courts below had rightly held that the testimonies of

prosecuting witnesses were required to be seen with due care and

caution because of the enmity, and once there was an admission of

tutoring, the learned Courts below were justified in doubting the

prosecution’s case.

24. A heavy reliance has been placed upon the evidence of

the Medical Officer, who had found abrasion on the perianal

region. Dr Shiv Darshan Singh (PW-12) admitted in his cross-

examination that the abrasion could have been caused by

scratching the region with the finger. Thus, the medical evidence

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS
P a g e | 18
2026:HHC:7170

does not provide unequivocal corroboration of the prosecution’s

version.

.

25. Dr Ashutosh Joshi (PW-5) did not find any

scratch/injury on the penis of the accused. He specifically stated

that he had not found any blood or injury on the penis of the

accused. The presence of the injury would have corroborated the

of
victim’s version regarding sexual penetration by the accused, and

its absence will make the prosecution’s case suspect.

26.
rt
The other witnesses examined by the prosecution had

not witnessed the incident. The victim told his father about the

incident, and he told the other people. They are not eyewitnesses,

and at best their testimonies could have been used to corroborate

the victim’s testimony, but once the victim’s testimony is found to

be not credible, the testimonies of other witnesses will not prove

the prosecution’s case.

27. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the

learned Courts below requiring any interference from this Court.

28. No other point was urged.

29. In view of the above, the present revision fails and is

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS

P a g e | 19
2026:HHC:7170

30. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code

of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

.

Sanhita, 2023) the respondent/accused is directed to furnish bail

bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount

to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court which shall be

effective for six months with a stipulation that in the event of a

of
Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on

grant of the leave, the respondent/accused on receipt of notice
rt
thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

31. A copy of the judgment, along with records of the

learned Courts, be sent back forthwith.

( Rakesh Kainthla )
16 March, 2026.

th
Judge
(ravinder)

::: Downloaded on – 16/03/2026 20:33:11 :::CIS