CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 1 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 Date of decision : 17.07.2026 Bhoop Singh and others ...Appellants Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Proceedings qua for appellant No.1 has already been abated vide order dated 01.05.2026. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Narula, Advocate for appellant Nos.2 and 3. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. *** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. The present appeal has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 05/14.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby appellant No.1 was convicted under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to further undergon SI for a period of one year. Further, appellant No.2 and 3 were convicted under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for a period of six months under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for a period of three months under Section 323 IPC 2. The facts in brief are that on the intervening night of 08/09.11.2002 at about 02.00 AM, appellants-Nirmala Devi (wife of appellant No.1) and Suman Bala (daughter of appellant No.1), i.e. a total of five persons VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 2 inflicted injuries to the complainants with their respective weapons over a land dispute. The said land is of Krishan Kumar, brother of appellant No.1 and was on lease against the wishes of appellant Nos.1 and 2. In the said occurrence, complainants received grievous and multiple injuries including fracture on the head, which resulted into the registration of the FIR No.199 dated 10.11.2002 under Sections 308/325/323/506/34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa. 3. Accordingly, trial was proceeded and prosecution examined 11 witnesses and trial Court vide order dated 05.11.2007/14.11.2007 convicted the appellant Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 of IPC whereas other accused, namely, Nirmala Devi and Suman Bala were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Thus, the present appeal has been filed. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 has apprised this Court that during the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No.1, namely, Bhoop Singh has expired on 27.06.2023. 5. Learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 and 3 submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the appellant No.2 and 3 have already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 month and 23 days and 03 months and 22 days respectively, and have remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present appeal. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the appellant’s clean antecedents, and the fact that they are not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 3 justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellants have rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and do not deserve any concession and prays that the present appeal be dismissed on merits. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1, who was armed with gandasa has already been expired and as per the records, the injuries, which could be dangerous to life i.e. injuries nos.1 to 3 were attributed to appellant No.1 only. Appellant Nos.2 and 3, who were armed with iron rod gave inuries on the head of complainant-Ramesh Chand, but nothing has come on record in reference to the attribution or the inflicted injuries to the complainant/injured. 9. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2002 and the appellants who are aged about 40 and 50 years respectively, have already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 24 years. 10. In the instant case, the appellants have been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to the complainant, but nothing has come on record in reference to the attribution or the inflicted injuries to the complainant/injured. 11. While considering the appellants’ prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 4 mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the appellants have not been involved in any other criminal case and have maintained a clean record, indicating their reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle them from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, the appellants have already undergone 01 month and 23 days and 03 months and 22 days respectively, of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 12. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 5 consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. 14. Given the above discussion and without opining on the merits of the case, the present appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant Nos.2 and 3, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/-each to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. 15. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the appellant Nos.2 and 3 stand discharged. 16. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the appellants will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-2451-SB-2007 6 17. Further, the present appeal stands disposed of as abated qua appellant No.1-Bhoop Singh, qua imprisonment and sentence of fine also. 18. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 17.07.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment