584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.07.2026 BHIM SINGH AND ANR …. Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate for Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. * * * * DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Learned State counsel has furnished copy of death certificate of appellant No.1-Bhim Singh. The same is taken on record. As per the same, appellant No.1-Bhim Singh expired on 23.06.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute the aforesaid fact. 4. In view of the aforestated position, the proceedings qua appellant No.1-Bhim Singh stand abated both against the sentence of imprisonment as well as fine as he has already expired during the SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -2- pendency of this appeal. Now, the instant appeal survives only qua appellant No.2-Rajesh. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.09.2006 at about 6:00 p.m., the complainant, Gaddi Ram, and Satbir Singh alias Satta were playing cards in the gher of Maida. At that time, Munshi Ram brought the complainant and Satbir Singh to his house to consume alcohol. After they had consumed one bottle of liquor, Munshi Ram asked the complainant to purchase another bottle. The complainant declined, stating that he had no money left and did not wish to consume any more liquor. This refusal led to a verbal altercation between them. During the course of the quarrel, Munshi Ram's two sons, Bhim Singh (appellant No.1) and Rajesh (appellant No.2), arrived at the spot. The altercation soon escalated into a physical assault. Appellant No.2, Rajesh, allegedly struck the complainant on the head with a lathi, while appellant No.1, Bhim Singh, struck him on his left knee with a lathi. On witnessing the assault, Satbir Singh alias Satta intervened in an attempt to rescue the complainant. In response, the appellants allegedly pushed Satbir Singh with force, causing his head to collide with a nearby wall. Owing to the impact, Satbir Singh immediately became speechless, drowsy, and lost consciousness. Thereafter, Satyawan and Karambir reached on the spot, rescued the injured persons, arranged a vehicle, and took them to Kharkhoda, where the complainant was medically examined. Consequently, FIR No.230 dated 11.10.2006 was registered at Police Station Kharkhoda under Sections 323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 323/307/34 of IPC but the trial Court SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -3- after adjudication did not held liable for the commission of offence under Section 307 and made liable for an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC as the injured Satbir Singh suffered a fracture of parietal bone. Accordingly, the appellant held guilty under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 of IPC and was accordingly convicted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, appellant No.2, who was about 34 years of age at the time of his conviction and is presently around 52 years old, has already undergone incarceration for a period of 03 months and 23 days and has 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 No.2’s clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 22.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellant No.2 has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present appeal be dismissed on merits. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -4- 10. A perusal of the case file shows that the prosecution examined 09 witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of appellant No.2 under Section 313 CrPC was thereafter recorded, wherein the appellant No.2 pleaded innocence and asserted that he was not present at the time of occurrence. However, the appellants examined only 01 witness in defence. 11. Though, initially the FIR was registered under Sections 323/307/34 of IPC but the trial Court after adjudication convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 of IPC as the injured Satbir Singh suffered a fracture of parietal bone. 12. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that as per the complaint Ex.PD given by the complainant Gaddi Ram, PW-4, the injured Satbir Singh had sustained a fracture of left parietal bone when he was pushed by the appellant and other co-accused Bhim Singh where his head was struck against the wall. However, there is no conclusive Medico-Legal Report (MLR), as nature of the injury has not been described. Further, as per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2006, trial proceeded, this appeal was filed in the year 2008 and appellant No.2, who is around 52 years old, has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 19 years. 13. While considering the appellant No.2's prayer for reduction of sentence and without opining upon the merits of the case, 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, appellant No.2 has not been involved in any other SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -5- criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per custody certificate dated 22.07.2026, the appellant No.2 has already undergone 03 months and 23 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of 02 years rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 14. 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 consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -6- has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance for modifying the 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. 16. For the reasons mentioned above, the conviction for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC is hereby maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that appellant No.2 has already faced the agony of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 19 years, 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 appellant No.2, subject to enhanced fine of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. 17. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the appellant stand discharged. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 584 CRA-S-785-SB-2008 (O&M) -7- 18. 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 Court below and the appellant No.2 will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. 19. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. 23.07.2026 ‘Vanita/Sandeep’ (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable: Yes No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.