Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183

Nominal Index:

State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176

Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh .,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177

Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178

Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179

State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

State of H.P. v/s Soni and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181

Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 182

Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183

Himachal Pradesh High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Convicts In Four-Year-Old Child's Murder Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Chander Sharma & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 176

The 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 Court

Case Name: Subash Kumar & others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 177

The 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 Court

Case Name: Ashok Kumar v/s Dusha Kapil & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 178

The 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 Court

Case Name: Smt. Asha Rani V/s State of H.P. & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 179

The 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 Case

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Rajesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 180

The 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 Court

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Soni and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 181

The 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 their right under Section 50 of the Act.

The division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “A joint consent memo was prepared, which was signed by both the accused persons...as such the said lapse committed by the Investigation Officer amounts to violation of mandatory requirement, which was necessary to comply under Section 50 of NDPS Act."

Post-Graduation Diploma Not Equivalent To Post-Graduate Degree For Purpose Of Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Dr. Sunil Dutt V/s State of H.P. and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 182

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a postgraduate diploma cannot be treated as equivalent to a postgraduate degree for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999. 

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that: “There is no reference of Post Graduation Diploma in the essential qualification, therefore, meaning of words 'after doing Post Graduation' has to be construed as 'after doing Post Graduation Degree.”

Father Cannot Seek Refund Of Excess Maintenance Paid To Children After They Attain Majority: HP High Court

Case Name: Rishita Kapur and another V/s Vijay Kapur and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 183

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a father cannot seek a refund of maintenance paid to his children after they attain majority, as he has a moral duty to support them for their education.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “...being a father, even if, he has no legal duty, but has a moral obligation and duty as a father to ensure maintenance to his children, particularly, when they are at the verge of completing their education as any order to refund the amount paid in excess to the children would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners.”