Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Summary
15th September, 2026
Permitting Additional Evidence at the Appellate Stage for Age Determination in POCSO Cases
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the State under Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 391 of the old CrPC) seeking permission to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage in a case where the accused was convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act and Sections 354A, 354D, 376, and 506 of the IPC. The State sought to place on record the Matriculation Certificate and school records of the minor victim to conclusively establish her age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which had been inadvertently left out by the Investigating Officer during trial despite the availability of birth proof from the Panchayat and Pariwar Register. The High Court allowed the application, holding that investigative oversights do not constitute an “irreparable lacuna” that would bar additional evidence if such proof is essential for a just decision, causes no prejudice to the accused, and provides the defense a full opportunity to cross-examine. Furthermore, taking strict note of recurring lapses regarding age-proof in criminal investigations, the Court issued mandatory directives to the Director General of Police to instruct all Investigating Officers across the State to strictly adhere to Section 94 of the JJ Act.
STPL (Web) 2026 HP 684 : Kulwinder Singh v. State of H.P. (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)
Unsafe Convictions in Sexual Assault Cases
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant-accused challenging his conviction under Sections 457 and 376 of the IPC passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court, POCSO), Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years. The prosecution alleged that the accused broke into the labor quarters on the intervening night of September 20/21, 2018, and committed rape upon a minor victim, though the trial court ultimately found she was not a “child” under the POCSO Act as her age was not proved below 18. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution’s case was severely undermined by material contradictions between the initial written complaint and oral testimonies, significant improvements in the mother’s version, total lack of physical or forensic corroboration (with the SFSL report detecting no blood or semen), and the severe mental retardation (90% intellectual disability) of the prosecutrix, which medical opinions established rendered her incapable of giving a valid statement.
STPL (Web) 2026 HP 685 : Kripal Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)
MACT: Navigating Third-Party Liability and the “Pay and Recover” Rule in Motor Accidents
This motor accident appeal was filed by the owner of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the MACT award which granted compensation of Rs. 3,48,700 to the claimant and granted recovery rights to the insurance company against the owner. The claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries when his motorcycle was hit by a car being driven rashly and negligently. While the owner raised an uncorroborated plea that a third person was driving, and later admitted during cross-examination that he himself possessed no driving license, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award. The Court ruled that where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established due to the absence of a valid driving license, the insurer cannot escape its primary duty toward an innocent third party under a benevolent welfare statute, making the invocation of the “pay and recover” principle legally imperative.
