1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-447-SB-2005 (O&M) Reserved on : 03.07.2026 Pronounced on : 31.07.2026 Lakhvir Singh & Anr. ..... Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.93 dated 31.10.2002, was registered at the instance of ‘Randhir Singh’ for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. In view of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 abovesaid investigation, the appellants and their co-accused, namely ‘Hardeep Singh’ and ‘Charan Singh’, were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court. 3. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial, which by virtue of impugned judgment culminated into conviction of the appellants and acquittal of co-accused, namely ‘Hardeep Singh’ and ‘Charan Singh’. Thus, vide order dated 23.02.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence, the appellants were awarded following sentences:- Name of convict Offence under Sections Sentence Lakhbir Singh 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 27 of Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Surjit Singh 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 this case came into being at the instance of ‘Randhir Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he was an agriculturist and on 31.10.2002, at about 05:30 am, he and his younger brother ‘Kuldeep Singh’ went to the fields on their tractor trolley, to fetch paddy-straw. According to complainant, ‘Lakhvir Singh’, armed with a, .12 bore gun, and ‘Surjeet Singh’, ‘Charan Singh’ & ‘Hardeep Singh’, all three armed with sticks, were already present there. As per complainant, they exhorted to teach a lesson to the complainant and his brother, and thereafter ‘Lakhvir Singh’ fired from his gun towards the complainant, however he saved himself by laying on the ground and then ‘Lakhvir Singh’ fired another shot towards ‘Kuldeep Singh’ (the brother of the complainant), which hit the right side of his abdomen and right arm. 6. The complainant further alleged that thereafter he raised alarm, upon which Ex-Sarpanch of Village Mundian, namely ‘Jaspal Singh’, came there and the accused party fled from the spot along with their respective weapons. According to complainant, thereafter injured ‘Kuldeep Singh’ was taken to Civil Hospital Chamkaur Sahib, by the complainant and ‘Jaspal Singh’, from where he was referred to Civil Hospital Ropar and from Civil Hospital Ropar, to PGI Chandigarh. As per complainant, the abovementioned incident occurred with an intention to commit murder due to ongoing civil litigation between the parties and that all the assailants had connived with each other. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 CrPC, and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed. 8. To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellants, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents relied upon, and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution were:- Ex.PA - Statement of complainant Ex.PB - Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab Ex.PB/1 - Report with regard to surgery of injured Kuldeep Singh Ex.PB/2 - Discharge certificate of injured Kuldeep Singh Ex.PC - Information chit sent to police, by Civil Hospital Chamkaur Sahib and other reports of Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab Ex.PD/1 - Medical record of injured Kuldeep Singh Ex.PE - Recovery memo of clothes of injured Kuldeep Singh Ex.PE/1 - FIR of the case Ex.PF - Recovery memo of blood stained earth Ex.PG - Recovery memo of empty cartridges of 12 bore Ex.PH - Memo of search of the person of accused Lakhvir Singh GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 Ex.PJ - Another memo of search of the person of accused Lakhvir Singh Ex.PK - Confessional statement of Lakhvir Singh, recorded u/s 27 of Evidence Act Ex.PL - Recovery memo of 11 live cartridges and arms license of accused Lakhvir Singh Ex.PM - Recovery memo of 12 bore gun of double barrel Ex.PN - Affidavit of HC Krishan Lal Ex.PP - Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PW10/A - Scaled site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW11/A - Affidavit of HC Jagit Singh Ex.PW12/A - Photostat copy of arms license of Lakhvir Singh Ex.PW13/A - Endorsement recorded by ASI Chanan Ram of the statement of complainant Ex.PW13/C - Application for enquiry about the condition of injured Kuldeep Singh Ex.PW13/D - Site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW13/E - Information memo regarding arrest of accused Surjeet Singh and Lakhvir Singh Ex.PW13/F - Rough site plan of the place of recovery of gun and arms license Ex.P-15 - Marked gun Ex.P-16 - Arms license Ex.P-2 & P-3 - Empty cartridges Ex.P-4 to P-14 - Live cartridges Ex.P-1 - Cloth (banyan) 9. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Those were:- PW-1 - Dr. Bhanu Partap Singh Parmar, Senior GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 Resident, Department Of General Surgery, PGI Chandigarh PW-2 - Randhir Singh (complainant) PW-3 - Injured Kuldip Singh PW-4 - Jaspal Singh, Ex-Sarpanch PW-5 - Dr. Ajay Jindal, Civil Hospital Ropar PW-6 - SI Satpal, District Police Office, Ropar PW-7 - Dr. T.D. Yadav, Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, PGI Chandigarh PW-8 - ASI Premchand, Traffic Police, Mohali PW-9 - HC Krishan Lal PW-10 - Sarabjit Singh, Patwari PW-11 - MHC Jagir Singh PW-12 - Manmohan Singh PW-13 - ASI Chanan Ram 10. Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed the essential formalities as enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellants. In their defence evidence, the appellants examined as many as six witnesses. Those were:- DW-1 - Roop Chand, Deed Writer Chamkaur Sahib DW-2 - Balwant Singh, Deed Writer Chamkaur Sahib DW-3 - Surjit Singh DW-4 - Jagjit Singh Gill, DSP Barnala DW-5 - Tarlochan Singh DW-6 - Gurmit Singh 11. The appellants in their defence had proved the following documents, and marked the same with exhibits:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 Ex.D1 & D2 - Entry of register maintained by him and sale deed proved Ex.DW2/A - Photostat of entry of register Ex.DW2/B - Endorsement of gift deed Ex.DW3/A - Endorsement of sale deed 12. Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave an opportunity to the appellants as well as prosecution to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction against the appellants was returned. 13. Heard. 14. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, being the outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act were not established by the prosecution, as per the standard prescribed under the law. As per learned counsel for the appellants, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held that charges against the appellants had been proved. The learned counsel for the appellants had contends that the appellants have been wrongly held guilty, and convicted accordingly, by the learned trial Court. 15. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellants are GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellants are challenging the order on the quantum of sentence only. 16. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2002. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 24 years and have, in fact, already suffered more punishment than they deserved. It has further been submitted on behalf of appellants that the offence in question is the first offence committed by the appellants, and that after the offence, related to present case, the appellants have not been prosecuted for any other offence. 17. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that in the present case, the appellants, namely ‘Lakhvir Singh’ and ‘Surjeet Singh’, have already served a sentence for a period of more than one year & nine months and two months & twenty five days, respectively. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellants were convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellants may be treated to be sufficient. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the principles of law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ‘Rakesh Dutt Sharma V/s State of Uttarakhand’ Criminal Appeal GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 No.1461/2012 and ‘State of Rajasthan V/s Manoj Kumar’ (2014) 5 SCC 744. 18. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellants have been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e. imprisonment for a period of seven years, is already on lower side, and that the appellants are not entitled for a sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than seven years. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal. 19. The record has been perused carefully. 20. Once it is a categorical stand of the appellants that they are not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction of appellants, for the offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellants have already served a sentence for a period of one year, nine months twenty & seven days, and two months and twenty five days, respectively, against the awarded sentence of seven years, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 and that they have not been prosecuted for any offence either before the instant case, or thereafter, it is hereby held that the appellants are entitled to a lenient view. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e. imprisonment for a period of seven years, is held to be harsh. Thus, it is hereby held that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence of appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 22. In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which need consideration: - (a) that the incident in question had taken place about 24 years ago; (b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 24 years; and (c) that against the awarded sentence of seven years, the appellants have already served sentence for a period of almost one year, nine months twenty & seven days, and two months and twenty five days, respectively. 23. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case the appellants are entitled for a lenient view, and that the sentence, which they have already undergone in the present case, i.e. imprisonment for a period of one year, nine months & GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 twenty seven days, and two months & twenty five days, respectively, is adequate to meet the ends of justice. 24. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 31.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.01 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document