STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) vs SURENDER PAL(Not Applicable) — CR.A/147/2014
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 30th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010108272014
Filing Number
CR.A/20135/2014
Filing Date
16-Apr-2014
Registration No
CR.A/147/2014
Registration Date
30-Apr-2014
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL APPEAL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL FOR OFFENCES UNDER IPC ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
30-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 31-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)
Adv. AG
Respondent(s)
-
1.SURENDER PAL(Not Applicable)
Adv. REPONDENT,DIVYA SOOD, VIBHUTI NAKTA,NEHA SCOTT 1123
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan SharmaView PDF
Summary of CR.A/147/2014 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the acquittal of Surender Pal in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 498-A (cruelty to wife) and 306 (abetment of suicide). The court found that prosecution witnesses provided only vague allegations without specific instances of harassment or cruelty, and crucially, failed to establish the required mens rea (criminal intent) to instigate suicide. The investigating officer confirmed no dowry demands, no forced poison administration, and no evidence of deliberate incitement. Applying Supreme Court precedent requiring concrete proof of direct/indirect acts proximate to the suicide, the court dismissed the state's appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Jul-2014
Order Matters
Additional Registrar(j)
-
16-Apr-2014
Case filed
Registration No. CR.A/147/2014
Summary of CR.A/147/2014 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the acquittal of Surender Pal in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 498-A (cruelty to wife) and 306 (abetment of suicide). The court found that prosecution witnesses provided only vague allegations without specific instances of harassment or cruelty, and crucially, failed to establish the required mens rea (criminal intent) to instigate suicide. The investigating officer confirmed no dowry demands, no forced poison administration, and no evidence of deliberate incitement. Applying Supreme Court precedent requiring concrete proof of direct/indirect acts proximate to the suicide, the court dismissed the state's appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts