103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2344-SB-2004 Date of Decision: April 24, 2025 Kabal Singh and others … Appellants Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Diksha, Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Out of three appellants, whose convic%on was recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat in a case arising out of FIR No.177 dated 31.07.2001, registered at Police Sta%on Madlauda, under Sec%ons 148, 149, 324, 307 IPC, besides Sec%on 25 of the Arms Act, proceedings qua two of them, namely, Wazir Singh and Gurnam Singh were ordered to be abated by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 on account of their death. As such, the present appeal was confined to appellant – Kabal Singh. Appellant – Kabal Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under:- Sr. No. Offence Sentence (R.I) Fine Further sentence in case of non-payment of fine 1. 307/34 IPC 05 years `5,000/- S.I. for 06 months 2. 324/34 IPC 06 months -- -- 3. 30 Arms Act 03 months -- -- 2. Against the abovesaid convic%on and sentence, this appeal was filed. 3. Today learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant – Kabal Singh stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic%on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submiAed that appellant would be sa%sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that appellant was young person of 36 years at that %me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 20 days Sarita Rani 2025.04.25 11:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRA-S-2344-SB-2004 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:052821 and is involved in two other cases, in which he is on bail and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 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 has already undergone actual custody sentence of 02 months and 20 days. He was young person of 36 years of age at the %me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 years back. 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 him 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 is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 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. April 24, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.25 11:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order