The Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla on 30 August 2025, before Justice Rakesh Kainthla, partly allowed a revision petition which challenged concurrent convictions for house trespass, outraging the modesty of a woman, and causing hurt. The petition was partly allowed on the ground that the conviction for causing hurt by dangerous means was unsustainable since teeth cannot be treated as a deadly weapon under Section 324 IPC.
The case arose from an incident on 5 March 2007, when the petitioner entered the victim’s house at about 11:30 p.m., molested her, and bit her cheek. On hearing her cries, her brother-in-law rushed in, prompting the petitioner to flee. The victim immediately reported the incident, and her medical examination revealed injuries consistent with her account. Relying on this evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment, which were upheld on appeal.
The petitioner argued in revision that the victim had exaggerated her testimony, that her injuries were self-inflicted, and that the eyewitness could have been mistaken due to darkness. The High Court, however, reiterated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited to correcting legal or jurisdictional errors and does not allow reappreciation of evidence. It found the victim’s testimony credible, corroborated by a prompt FIR and medical findings, and held that the supposed contradictions were never properly established. The brother-in-law’s statement, though partly hostile, was admissible under the rule of res gestae, and his inability to identify the accused in court was explained by the accused’s absence on that day. While the Court ruled that teeth cannot be treated as a deadly weapon—setting aside the conviction for causing hurt by dangerous means—it upheld the convictions for trespass, molestation, and voluntarily causing hurt, noting that the sentence imposed was already lenient given the seriousness of the midnight intrusion.
The Court, in view of the above, partly allowed the revision petition. The conviction and sentence for causing hurt by dangerous means were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of that charge. Subject to this modification, the convictions for house trespass, outraging modesty, and voluntarily causing hurt, as affirmed by the appellate court, were upheld. A modified warrant was ordered to be prepared accordingly, and the records were directed to be sent back to the trial court along with the judgment, with all pending applications disposed of.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Advocate Mr. Janesh Gupta
For the Respondent/ State : , Additional Advocate General-Mr. Lokender Kutlehria
