CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 23.07.2026 1. CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) Rajinder Singh @ Tuhi @ Raju ...Appellant Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRA-S-1001-SB-2007 (O&M) Thapa @ Titu @ Manjit Singh and others ...Appellants Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent 3. CRA-S-269-SB-2008 (O&M) Kali @ Kulwinder Singh ...Appellant Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-927-SB-2007 and CRA-S-1001-SB-2007. Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-S-269-SB-2008. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the complainant. *** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. This judgment shall decide the aforementioned three appeals as the impugned judgment is arising from the same FIR. The facts of CRA-S-927- SB-2007 have been extracted for adjudication of all the appeals. VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 2 2. The present appeals have been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 24/25.04.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari whereby appellants were convicted under Sections 148/323/324/307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo as under:- Offence Sentence 148 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two years each 323/149 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year each 324/149 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two years each 307/149 IPC To undergo RI for a period of four years each and directed to pay a fine of Rs.3500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of four months. 452 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months. 3. The facts in brief are that on 26.10.2000 on the eve of Diwali festival, certain boys from Paper Mill Colony, Yamuna Nagar including Azad, Tinu, Kaka, and Thapa @ Titu asked Avdesh Kumar son of Paras Nath Gupta for a toy pistol. When he refused, they abused him, leading Rakesh Kumar (complainant/PW11) to intervene and rescue Avdesh. The boys left after threatening Rakesh that they would deal with him later. Harbouring this grudge, on 27.10.2000, at around 10:00–11:00 AM, a group of boys including Rajender Singh @ Tuhi @ Raju, Kali, Titu Thapa, Manglesh, Tinu, Surender Rawat, and Azad, along with others unlawfully trespassed into the house of Rakesh Kumar and his brother Rajesh Kumar (PW7). They all were armed with weapons such as knives, iron rods, lathis, and a punch. The assailants dragged both brothers out of their home and assaulted them. During the attack, Kali struck Rakesh on the head with a rod, Titu hit his shoulder with an iron VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 3 rod, Azad struck him with a lathi, while others delivered fist and slap blows. Concurrently, Rajender Singh @ Tuhi inflicted three knife blows targeted at the face/neck of Rajesh Kumar, causing severe facial injuries and jaw fractures, while Surender Rawat struck Rajesh on the left arm. The incident was witnessed by family members i.e. Phool Kumari (mother), Sushma (Sister-in- law) alongside Rattan Mani, Dinesh and Manoj who were the neighbors of the complainant. After extending threats, all the assailants fled away from the spot. Both injured brothers were taken to the hospital for medical treatment, following which FIR No. 350 dated 27.10.2000 was registered under Sections 148/149/323/324/326/452 IPC at Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar on the basis of statement of Rakesh Kumar. 4. Accordingly, trial was proceeded and prosecution examined 12 witnesses and trial Court vide order dated 24/25.04.2007 convicted the appellants under Sections 148/323/324/307/452 read with Section 149 IPC and 452 IPC. Thus, the present appeal(s) has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the appellants have already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 06 months 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 appellants’ 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 justice. VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 4 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificates 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 appeals 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. A perusal of the judgment reveals that as per prosecution story the appellant-Kali @ Kulwinder Singh gave rod blow on the head of the Rakesh, Titu hit on complainant’s right shoulder with an iron rod, Azad struck him with a lathi, Tinu, Manglesh and Surender Rawat and Tuhi gave fist and slap blows. Appellant-Rajinder Singh @ Tuhi inflicted three knife blows on the face/neck of Rajesh Kumar, causing severe facial injuries and jaw fractures, while Surinder Rawat gave punch on the left arm of Rakesh, whereas on contrary no such recoveries were made. Further, as per the testimony of PW-5-Mahavir Singh, only one vegetable cutting knife i.e. Ex.P-14 was recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ex.P-12. 9. Further, the injuries stated to be caused by the appellants were opined as not dangerous to life and the said fact had been duly endorsed by PW-1 in his cross-examination dated 01.08.2006 stating therein that the injuries on the person of Rajesh Kumar were caused by only one weapon. Even, as per Ex.P-8, said injuries were not declared as dangerous to life. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the testimony of PW-10 i.e. Dr.Nageshwar Ayer dated 23.10.2006, wherein it has been specifically admitted by him that initially, he did not treat the injured, rather the treatment VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 5 was conducted by PW-8 Dr.Sanjay Singh. This Court has also examined the testimony of PW-8 and finds that the injuries sustained by Rajesh Kumar were opined to be not dangerous to life. The recovery of weapon is not in consonance with the alleged story of prosecution hence the allegations are not above suspicion. It has also been noticed that the expert doctors differed upon the nature of injuries accordingly the complete chain leading to the hypothesis of guilt is missing. 10. Apart from the above, the prosecution’s case was based only on the statement of complainant and no independent public witness from the locality was joined or examined to corroborate the incident except Dinesh Kumar. As per FIR, the occurrence was witnessed by Phool Kumari (mother of the complainant), Sushma (sister in law of the complainant), Rattan Lal, Manoj and Dinesh Kumar, but any neighbour of the complainant was not examined. Further, a perusal of the record shows that the knife used by the appellant- Rajender Singh @ Tuhi in the occurrence was not sent to the FSL. 11. Moreover, one person namely, Avdesh Kumar was not examined, on whose refusal to give a toy pistol to the appellant on Diwali eve and further being saved by the intervention of Rakesh Kumar (complainant), the occurrence took place. Further, in para No.11 of the judgment, learned trial Court observed that all the facial injuries caused to the complainant-Rajesh Kumar have not been declared dangerous to life. 12. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2000 and the appellants have already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 26 years, who were at the time of registration of FIR were around 18 years of age and now are aged more than 40 years. VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 6 13. 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 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. 14. Further, as per the custody certificates furnished by learned State counsel, the appellants have already undergone the below-mentioned custody of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence:- Appellant(s) Custody certificate dated Years Months Days Rajinder Singh @ Tuhi @ Raju 06.07.2026 00 08 22 Thapa @ Titu @ Manjit Singh 06.07.2026 00 06 21 Surinder Rawat @ Bona 06.07.2026 00 06 21 Devender Sharma 06.07.2026 00 06 21 Vinod Kumar@ Tinu 06.07.2026 00 06 21 Kali @ Kulwinder Singh 23.07.2026 01 11 17 These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 15. 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 VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 7 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 consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 16. 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. VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRA-S-927-SB-2007 (O&M) and other connected cases 8 17. In the present case as well, the allegations against the appellants are that they have caused grievous injuries to the complainant, but same were not declared dangerous to life. 18. Given the above discussion and without opining on the merits of the case, the present appeal(s) are 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 appellants, 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. 19. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the appellants stand discharged. 20. 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. 21. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. 22. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case(s). (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 23.07.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No VANITA 2026.07.30 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment