1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129-II CRA-S-133-SB-2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026 Manoj ..... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2005 and order of sentence dated 26.11.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, 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.60 dated 27.04.2004, was registered at the instance of ‘Rattan Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Tosham. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant along with his co-accused, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 namely ‘Nafe Singh’, was sent to face trial before the learned trial Court. 3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue of judgment dated 25.11.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellant. Thus, vide order dated 26.11.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentences were awarded to the appellant:- Offence under Section Sentence 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 25 of Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 27 of Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three 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. 5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Rattan Singh’, the complainant. The complainant alleged that on 24.04.2004, at about 11:45 pm, when he was sleeping in the courtyard of his house, and his wife ‘Niko Devi’, daughter ‘Neelam’ and son were sleeping in the adjoining verandah, ‘Manoj’ (the appellant herein) along with ‘Nafe Singh’ (the co-accused) and one unidentified person, came to his house and knocked the door. According to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 complainant, when he opened the door, ‘Nafe Singh’ exhorted to teach a lesson and on his instigation, the appellant ‘Manoj’ took out a country-made pistol and fired a shot at the complainant with an intention to kill. As per complainant, as a result abovementioned firing, he suffered a firearm injury on the left side of his abdomen, as the bullet passed through his body. The complainant further alleged that the reason behind the abovementioned attack was that the appellant-Manoj was having a previous dispute with his daughter ‘Neelam’ and had earlier extended threats to the complainant and his family. 6. It was the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, 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. 7. To discharge its burden of proving the charges against the appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon oral and documentary evidence, both. The documents proved, and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution, were:- Ex.PA - Medico-legal report of Rattan Singh (the complainant) Ex.PB - The information memo sent to the police station (ruqqa) Ex.PC - Copy of bed ticket of Rattan Singh GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 Ex.PD - Application by police to record statement of Rattan Singh Ex.PD/1 - Opinion of doctor declaring complainant Rattan Singh unfit for making statement Ex.PE - Another application by police to record statement of Rattan Singh Ex.PE/1 - Opinion of doctor regarding injury Ex.PF - Rough plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PG - Forensic Science Laboratory regarding countrymade pistol .315 bore Ex.PH - Statement of Rattan Singh recorded in hospital Ex.PH/1 - Endorsement of Chief Medical Officer over abovementioned statement Ex.PH/2 - Copy of First Information Report Ex.PJ - Sanction order for prosecuting the appellant ‘Manoj’ Ex.PK - Affidavit of Ct. Jagbir Singh Ex.PM - Disclosure statement by appellant-Manoj Ex.PM/1 - Attestation by HC Raghubir Singh on the abovementioned statement Ex.PM/2 - Sketch of pistol Ex.PM/3 - Seizure memo of pistol recovered subsequent to disclosure of appellant Ex.PM/4 - Memo of identification of place of occurrence Ex.PM/5 - Rough site plan of the place of recovery of pistol Ex.PN - Disclosure statement of co-accused ‘Nafe Singh’ Ex.PO - Rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PQ - Recovery memo of one bullet Ex.PR - Disclosure statement of accused ‘Amar Singh’ Ex.PS - Another disclosure statement of accused ‘Amar Singh’ Ex.PS/1 - Identification of the place of occurrence by ‘Amar Singh’ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 Ex.PT - Disclosure statement of accused ‘Shakti Singh’ Ex.PT/1 - Refusal for test identification parade by accused ‘Shakti Singh’ Ex.PT/2 - Endorsement by Judicial Magistrate First Class for refusal of test identification parade Ex.P1 - Iron Box Ex.P2 - Empty cartridge 8. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They were:- PW-1 - Lt. Col. Dr. N.C. Varma, Senior Trauma and General Surgeon, CMC Hospital Hisar PW-2 - Kuldeep Singh, Patwari Halqa PW-3 - Rattan Singh, the complainant PW-4 - Bhisham Chander, Reader to District Magistrate Bhiwani PW-5 - SI Ram Kumar PW-6 - Ct. Jagbir Singh PW-7 - Niko wife of complainant PW-8 - MHC Rattan Singh PW-9 - HC Raghubir Singh PW-10 - ASI Rohtash Singh PW-11 - ASI Attar Singh PW-12 - ASI Hazari Lal PW-13 - Narender Kaur, Judicial Magistrate First Class Hissar PW-14 - Ct. Subhash 9. Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 appellant. In his defence evidence, the appellant had not examined any witness. 10. When the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellant, was pronounced and, accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinabove. 11. Heard. 12. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the appellant, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumption, the unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was believed by the learned trial Court. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court had failed to apply its judicial mind, and that, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises findings of conviction of appellant under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act were recorded. 13. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. According to learned counsel for the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 appellant, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an inference that all the essential ingredients, meant for the commission of offence, for which the appellant was convicted had been established. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case against the appellant was not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court returned the finding of conviction. 14. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the apppellant has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on the point of quantum of sentence only. 15. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2004. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 22 years and have, in fact, already suffered more punishment than he deserved. 16. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in the present case, the appellant ‘Manoj’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, seven months and twenty four days. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above- discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant has been convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient. 17. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellants have been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of seven years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of less than seven years. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merits and deserves dismissal. 18. The record has been perused carefully. 19. Once it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is 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 appellant, for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 20. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant ‘Manoj’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, seven months and twenty four days, against the awarded sentence of seven years, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 21. 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 22 years ago; (b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 22 years; (c) that against the awarded sentence of seven years, the appellant ‘Manoj’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, seven months and twenty four days; and (d) that in the last more than 21 years, the appellant has not been prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. 22. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellant 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 appellant needs to be rationalized and reduced. 23. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is adequate to meet the ends of justice. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 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 appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 10.09.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.09.10 19:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document