IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 101 (1) CRA-S-1768-SB-2004 Date of Decision.:02.05.2025 Manjit Kaur …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant Manjit Kaur was tried by learned Addi%onal Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar in a case arising out of FIR No.183 dated 25.04.2002 under Sec%ons 364, 171 of the IPC registered at Police Sta%on City, Jagadhri. A6er trial, the appellant Manjit Kaur was convicted under Sec%ons 364, 171 of the IPC vide judgment dated 10.08.2004 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of three years and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of 06 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Against the abovesaid convic%on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic%on; and that appellant confines her prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi<ed that appellant would be sa%sfied, in case she is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2002; that appellant Manjit Kaur has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 07 days and is not involved in another case and so, she deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by her. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.02 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1768-SB-2004 -2- 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cer%ficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that appellant Manjit Kaur has already undergone actual sentence of 04 months and 07days. It is revealed further that she has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a6er their convic%on, appellant has been involved in any other case. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus%ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending her behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic%on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant Manjit Kaur is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. 9. However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks’ from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE May 02, 2025 Nee%ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.02 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document