1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CRA-S-531-SB-2005 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.08.2026 Bharti Lal & Anr. ..... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the appellants. The same be taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been jointly filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2005 and order of sentence dated 20.01.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Fatehabad, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. 3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.611 dated 15.10.2001, was registered at the instance of ‘Pawan Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad. In the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellants were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court. 4. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue of impugned judgment, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellants. Thus, vide order dated 20.01.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentences were awarded to the appellants:- Offence under Sections Sentence 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Pawan Kumar’. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 14.10.2001 at about 05:30 pm, he along with his nephew ‘Vishnu’ was going towards his house, constructed in the field, on his motorcycle. According to complainant, on the way near the bus stand of their Village, a jeep bearing registration No.HR22-B-4915 came from opposite directions and the driver of the jeep, namely ‘Kuldeep’, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 accelerated the speed of vehicle and hit their motorcycle with an intention to kill. 7. The complainant further alleged that due to abovementioned collision, he and his nephew ‘Vishnu’ fell down on the road and thereafter, ‘Bharti Lal’, who was travelling in the jeep, alighted from the vehicle. According to complainant, ‘Bharti Lal’ was armed with a kappa (sharp- edged weapon) and gave a blow on his right thigh and left hand with the abovementioned weapon. The complainant further alleged that in the meantime, ‘Kuldeep’ also alighted from the jeep and he thrashed him on his chest with kicks and exhorted to teach a lesson. It was further alleged that when he raised alarm for help, ‘Pala Ram’ arrived on the spot, and thereafter, assailants ran away from the place of occurrence. 8. It was case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to 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. 9. 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 proved and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution, were:- GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Ex.P1 - Recovery memo of jeep bearing registration No.HR22-B-4915 and also recovery memo of RC and DL of appellant ‘Bharti Lal’ Ex.P2 - Correct carbon copy of medico-legal report of complainant Ex.P3 - Copy of medico-legal report of complainant Ex.P4 - Application preferred by the police for recording the statement of injured Ex.P5 - Endorsement of doctor on the abovementioned application Ex.P6 - Report of doctor regarding fitness of injured to give statement Ex.P7 - PW-2, Dr. Anil Kumar Bhatia, sent ruqqa regarding admission of complainant Ex.P8 - Kappa (the weapon of offence) Ex.P7 - Site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.P8 to P11 - Photographs of place of occurrence Ex.P12 to P15 - Negatives of photographs Ex.P16 - Statement of Pawan Kumar (ruqqa) Ex.P17 - Endorsement regarding registration of FIR Ex.P18 - First Information Report Ex.P19 - Site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.P20 - Arrest memo of accused ‘Bharti Lal’ Ex.P21 - Driving Licence of accused ‘Bharti Lal’ Ex.P21 - Information regarding arrest of accused ‘Bharti Lal’ Ex.P22 - Arrest memo of accused ‘Kuldeep’ Ex.P23 - Information regarding arrest of ‘Kuldeep’ Ex.P24 - Registration Certificate of jeep Ex.P25 - Endorsement on ruqqa Ex.P26 - Report of mechanic regarding jeep Ex.P27 - Report of mechanic regarding motorcycle GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 10. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Those were:- PW-1 - ASI Rajesh Kumar PW-2 - Dr. Anil Kumar Bhatia PW-3 - Balwant Singh, Draftsman PW-4 - Om Parkash, Photographer PW-5 - Pawan Kumar (complainant) PW-6 - SI Jagdish Kumar PW-7 - ASI Charan Singh PW-8 - Vishnu, the injured PW-9 - Inspector Surat Singh PW-10 - Inspector Vijay Singh PW-11 - HC Ram Sarup 11. Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellants. In their defence evidence, the appellants have examined as many as three witnesses, i.e. DW-1 HC Sher Singh, DW-2 Dr. M.L. Sharma and DW-3 Ct. Ram Chander and proved documents, i.e. Ex.D1 (X-ray report), Ex.D2 (copy of rapat rojnamcha) and Ex.D3 (photocopy of MLR of ‘Bharti Lal’). 12. Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the appellants to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellants, was returned. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 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, as both of them are outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate that necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Sections 323/324 of IPC were not proved by the prosecution, and the evidence was inadequate to meet 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 were successfully proved. The learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the appellants have been wrongly held guilty, and convicted, 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 not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants categorically contends that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellants are challenging the order on 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 2001. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 25 years and have, in fact, already GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 suffered more punishment than they deserved. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the offence in question was the first offence committed by the appellants, and that before or 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 appellant No.1, namely ‘Bharti Lal’, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of three months & eleven days and appellant No.2 ‘Kuldeep Singh’ for three months & twenty five days. 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 have been convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellants may be treated to be sufficient. 18. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellants have been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/324 of IPC. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e. imprisonment for a period of two years, is already on lower side, and that the appellants are not entitled to a sentence of less than two years imprisonment. 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 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 appellants, for the offence under Sections 323/324 of IPC. 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 appellant No.1, namely ‘Bharti Lal’, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of three months & eleven days and appellant No.2 ‘Kuldeep Singh’ for three months & twenty five days, against the awarded sentence of two years, 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. 22. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence in the impugned order on the point of quantum of sentence by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellants needs to be rationalized and reduced. 23. In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which are required to be taken into consideration: - (a) that the incident in question had taken place about 25 years ago; (b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 25 years; GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 (c) that against the awarded sentence of two years, the appellant No.1, namely ‘Bharti Lal’, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of three months & eleven days and appellant No.2 ‘Kuldeep Singh’ for three months & twenty five days; and (d) that the appellants have clean record, before and after the offence in question. 24. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellants are entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case is adequate to meet the ends of justice. 25. 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 each of them, respectively. 26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.08.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.31 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document