103-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Samey Singh and State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE Present: Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate; Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate and Mr. for the Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present dated 10.03.2003 and order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 Additional Sessions Judge, from FIR No. 148,149,323,325 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. Succinctly, 11:00 AM, the property among the five brothers. No.1(complainant arrived at the spot to register their protest. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of Decision: Samey Singh and others Versus State of Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate; Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.(ORAL) The present appeal is preferred against 03 and order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 dditional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, from FIR No.114 dated 20.06.1998 148,149,323,325, 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code FACTUAL BACKGROUND Succinctly, the facts, as alleged, are that the appellants-accused were cultivating a piece of property among the five brothers. Sher Singh complainant), Ram Singh and Raj Kali found out about the same and arrived at the spot to register their protest. An argument ensued IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-573-SB-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 …Appellants ...Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR Haryana. **** is preferred against the judgment of conviction 03 and order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 passed by learned Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, in the case stemming registered under Sections Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’). are that on 20.06.1998, at about were cultivating a piece of disputed Sher Singh-brother of appellant Ram Singh and Raj Kali found out about the same and An argument ensued regarding MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB ownership of the disputed land gandasi blow on the head of the complainant, while gave laathi blows on his right arm, right leg and waist. blows on the head, right arm and waist of Ram Singh. wife of the complainant, No.1.The complainant party raised alarm causing 3 brick kiln to arrive at the spot. party was taken to the hospital. 3. After assessing all material on record, the learned convicted the appellants vide sentence dated 11.03.2003, they were sentenced as follows: Offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC It was further ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently. CONTENTIONS 4. Learned Court has erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against the appellants. In fact, it was the complainant party who were the aggressors as they were trying to stop the appellants from cultivating the land they possession of. As such, the appellants only acted in private defence as there SB-2003 (O&M) 2 ownership of the disputed land. Agitated by the same, appellant No.3 gave a blow on the head of the complainant, while blows on his right arm, right leg and waist. blows on the head, right arm and waist of Ram Singh. wife of the complainant, was hit by a tractor being driven by omplainant party raised alarm causing 3 brick kiln to arrive at the spot. The accused ran away and the complainant party was taken to the hospital. After assessing all material on record, the learned the appellants vide judgment dated sentence dated 11.03.2003, they were sentenced as follows: Offence under 323 read with of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for of Rs.500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one month each. Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for Rs.500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one month each. Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for of Rs.1000/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of two month each. It was further ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently. CONTENTIONS Learned counsel for the appellants Court has erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against the appellants. In fact, it was the complainant party who were the aggressors as they were trying to stop the appellants from cultivating the land they As such, the appellants only acted in private defence as there . Agitated by the same, appellant No.3 gave a blow on the head of the complainant, while Adesh Kumar and Rajan blows on his right arm, right leg and waist. Rajan also gave danda blows on the head, right arm and waist of Ram Singh. Moreover, Raj Kali, was hit by a tractor being driven by appellant omplainant party raised alarm causing 3-4 persons from the nearby The accused ran away and the complainant After assessing all material on record, the learned trial Court dated 10.03.2003. Vide order of sentence dated 11.03.2003, they were sentenced as follows: Sentence mprisonment for six months and a fine , in default of which rigorous one month each. mprisonment for two years and a fine of , in default of which rigorous one month each. mprisonment for three years and a fine , in default of which rigorous two month each. It was further ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently. appellants submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against the appellants. In fact, it was the complainant party who were the aggressors as they were trying to stop the appellants from cultivating the land they were in cultivating As such, the appellants only acted in private defence as there and a fine , in default of which rigorous and a fine of , in default of which rigorous and a fine , in default of which rigorous the learned trial Court has erred in rendering a judgment of conviction against the appellants. In fact, it was the complainant party who were the aggressors as they were trying were in cultivating As such, the appellants only acted in private defence as there MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB was a reasonable apprehension of harm at the Further, the offence appellants since the doctor who examined Raj Kali was to prove the M MLC itself does not categorical endorsement that the injuries sustained by her were dangerous to life. There is nothing on the record to indicate that there was a meeting of mind amongst the appellants to harm Raj Kali, as such the learned trial Court has erred in convicting Further, the case of the prosecution is riddled with infirmities as sharp contradictions are apparent in Singh as PW1 and his wife Raj Kal merely in self-defence and there was no intention to kill any members of the complainant party. As such, it is prayed that be reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellants as appel No.1 has already undergone appellant No.2 has undergone a period of 11 days and appellant No.3 has undergone a period of 02 months and 17 days. 5. Per contra Court has passed the judgment on conviction on correct facts and the law. establishes an intention to kill, justifying the invocation of Section 307 such, no interference by this Court is warranted. SB-2003 (O&M) 3 was a reasonable apprehension of harm at the hands Further, the offence under Section 307 IPC has not been proved lants since the doctor who examined Raj Kali was prove the Medico-Legal Case Summary(MLC) MLC itself does not indicate any crush injuries and neither does it categorical endorsement that the injuries sustained by her were dangerous to There is nothing on the record to indicate that there was a meeting of mind amongst the appellants to harm Raj Kali, as such the learned trial Court has icting all of them under Section 307 read with Further, the case of the prosecution is riddled with infirmities as sharp contradictions are apparent in the testimonies rendered by complainant Sher as PW1 and his wife Raj Kali as PW4. defence and there was no intention to kill any members of the complainant party. As such, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellants as appel No.1 has already undergone a period of 02 years, 05 months and 29 days appellant No.2 has undergone a period of 11 days and appellant No.3 has undergone a period of 02 months and 17 days. Per contra, learned State counsel Court has passed the judgment on conviction on correct facts and the law. Appellant No.1 hit Raj Kali with a tractor that clearly establishes an intention to kill, justifying the invocation of Section 307 such, no interference by this Court is warranted. hands of the complainant party. Section 307 IPC has not been proved against the lants since the doctor who examined Raj Kali was examined in the Court Legal Case Summary(MLC) (Ex. PT). Moreover, the indicate any crush injuries and neither does it make a categorical endorsement that the injuries sustained by her were dangerous to There is nothing on the record to indicate that there was a meeting of mind amongst the appellants to harm Raj Kali, as such the learned trial Court has all of them under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Further, the case of the prosecution is riddled with infirmities as sharp testimonies rendered by complainant Sher as PW4. The appellants were acting defence and there was no intention to kill any members of the the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellants as appellant a period of 02 years, 05 months and 29 days, appellant No.2 has undergone a period of 11 days and appellant No.3 has arned State counsel contends that the learned trial Court has passed the judgment on conviction on correct appreciation of the Appellant No.1 hit Raj Kali with a tractor that clearly establishes an intention to kill, justifying the invocation of Section 307 IPC. As such, no interference by this Court is warranted. y. the in the Court make a categorical endorsement that the injuries sustained by her were dangerous to There is nothing on the record to indicate that there was a meeting of mind amongst the appellants to harm Raj Kali, as such the learned trial Court has 34 IPC. Further, the case of the prosecution is riddled with infirmities as sharp testimonies rendered by complainant Sher The appellants were acting defence and there was no intention to kill any members of the the sentence of the appellants may lant , appellant No.2 has undergone a period of 11 days and appellant No.3 has contends that the learned trial of the Appellant No.1 hit Raj Kali with a tractor that clearly As MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property di brothers triggered a FIR(supra) has been registered against the appellants, a cross been filed by them by way of DDR No.21 dated 7. A perusal of the record (Ex. PA/1), the complainant of the tractor and appellant No.1, driving the same, hit her with it. Subsequently, in his testimony as PW1, he states that the front w tractor ran over Raj Kali. Whereas, Raj Kali, who appeared as PW4, testified that appellant No.1 ran her over with the tractor twice causing a spine. 8. In light of PW4 record does not bear any mention of crush injuries that would be sustained in such an event. It is highly fracture the back bone, without affecting any other bone or tissue in the body. The inconsistency between the statements made by the complainant as PW1 and his wife as PW4, coupled with the lack of corroborating medical evidence, creates significant suspicion with respect to the veracity of the narrative put forth by the prosecution. 9. Further and was examined by one Dr. Deepak Tyagi, as evidenced by the MLC (Ex. PT). A perusal treatment of a spinal injury SB-2003 (O&M) 4 OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property di triggered a quarrel between them on FIR(supra) has been registered against the appellants, a cross been filed by them by way of DDR No.21 dated A perusal of the record indicates tha (Ex. PA/1), the complainant-Sher Singh had stated that Raj Kali stood in front of the tractor and appellant No.1, driving the same, hit her with it. Subsequently, in his testimony as PW1, he states that the front w tractor ran over Raj Kali. Whereas, Raj Kali, who appeared as PW4, testified that appellant No.1 ran her over with the tractor twice causing a In light of PW4-Raj Kali’s specific assertion, it is curious that record does not bear any mention of crush injuries that would be sustained in such an event. It is highly unlikely that being ran over by a tractor would only fracture the back bone, without affecting any other bone or tissue in the body. tency between the statements made by the complainant as PW1 and his wife as PW4, coupled with the lack of corroborating medical evidence, creates significant suspicion with respect to the veracity of the narrative put forth by the prosecution. Further still, PW4-Raj Kali was taken to PGIMER, Chandigarh, and was examined by one Dr. Deepak Tyagi, as evidenced by the MLC (Ex. of the same would illustrate that she was brought in for treatment of a spinal injury. However, the under the head of Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real between them on 20.06.1998. While the FIR(supra) has been registered against the appellants, a cross-case has also been filed by them by way of DDR No.21 dated 21.06.1998. indicates that initially in his statement Sher Singh had stated that Raj Kali stood in front of the tractor and appellant No.1, driving the same, hit her with it. Subsequently, in his testimony as PW1, he states that the front wheel of the tractor ran over Raj Kali. Whereas, Raj Kali, who appeared as PW4, testified that appellant No.1 ran her over with the tractor twice causing a fracture in her s specific assertion, it is curious that the record does not bear any mention of crush injuries that would be sustained in that being ran over by a tractor would only fracture the back bone, without affecting any other bone or tissue in the body. tency between the statements made by the complainant as PW1 and his wife as PW4, coupled with the lack of corroborating medical evidence, creates significant suspicion with respect to the veracity of the narrative put Raj Kali was taken to PGIMER, Chandigarh, and was examined by one Dr. Deepak Tyagi, as evidenced by the MLC (Ex. of the same would illustrate that she was brought in for . However, the under the head of ‘nature of injury’ MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB merely ‘dangerous examined to prove the MLC prepared by him Dr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Resident, Department of Neurosur Chandigarh, as PW10 who categorically stated that Raj Kali was examine Dr. Deepak Tyagi presence. As such, in view of the fact that Dr. Deepak Tyagi was not and that the defence did not get an opportunity to cross MLC (Ex. PT) cannot be read into evidence. placed on the judgment rendered by Singh 1987(1) R.C.R.(Crimin 10. Moreover, all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 read with Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1976 AIR SC 2027 speaking through Justice N.L. Untwalia, the following was held: “12. The contention is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Section 34 is to be read along with the preceding Section 33 which makes it clear that the '' acts as a single act. It follows that the words ''when a criminal act is done by several persons'' in Section 34, may be construed to mean ''when criminal acts are done by several persons.'' The acts commi different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise, for instance, one may only stand guard to prevent any person coming to the relief of the victim o design. Such a person also commits an ''act'' as much as his co participants actually committing the planned crime. In the case of SB-2003 (O&M) 5 dangerous’ has been scribbled. Curiously, Dr. Deepak Tyagi was not examined to prove the MLC prepared by him. The prosecution did Dr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Resident, Department of Neurosur Chandigarh, as PW10 who categorically stated that Raj Kali was examine Dr. Deepak Tyagi and that the MLC (Ex. PT) was not prepared in his As such, in view of the fact that Dr. Deepak Tyagi was not and that the defence did not get an opportunity to cross MLC (Ex. PT) cannot be read into evidence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Singh 1987(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 184. Moreover, all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced er Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. ble Supreme Court in Ramaswamy Ayyangar vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 AIR SC 2027, elaborated on the essentials to attract Section 34 IPC and speaking through Justice N.L. Untwalia, the following was held: 12. The contention is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Section 34 is to be read along with the preceding Section 33 which makes it clear that the ''act'' spoken of in Section 34 includes a series of acts as a single act. It follows that the words ''when a criminal act is done by several persons'' in Section 34, may be construed to mean ''when criminal acts are done by several persons.'' The acts committed by different confederates in the criminal action may be different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise, for instance, one may only stand guard to prevent any person coming to the relief of the victim or to otherwise facilitate the execution of the common design. Such a person also commits an ''act'' as much as his co participants actually committing the planned crime. In the case of Curiously, Dr. Deepak Tyagi was not . The prosecution did examine Dr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Resident, Department of Neurosurgery, PGIMER, Chandigarh, as PW10 who categorically stated that Raj Kali was examined by and that the MLC (Ex. PT) was not prepared in his As such, in view of the fact that Dr. Deepak Tyagi was not examined and that the defence did not get an opportunity to cross-examine him on it, the Reliance in this regard can be Court in State of Punjab vs. Tara Moreover, all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced 34 IPC. A two Judge bench of the Ramaswamy Ayyangar vs. State of Tamil Nadu essentials to attract Section 34 IPC and speaking through Justice N.L. Untwalia, the following was held: 12. The contention is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Section 34 is to be read along with the preceding Section 33 which makes act'' spoken of in Section 34 includes a series of acts as a single act. It follows that the words ''when a criminal act is done by several persons'' in Section 34, may be construed to mean ''when criminal acts are done by several persons.'' The acts tted by different confederates in the criminal action may be different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise, for instance, one may only stand guard to prevent any person coming to the relief of the r to otherwise facilitate the execution of the common design. Such a person also commits an ''act'' as much as his co- participants actually committing the planned crime. In the case of MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB an offence involving physical violence, however, the application of Section 34 that the person who instigates or aids the commission of the crime must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime for the purpose of the facilitating or promoting the offence, the commission of which is the aim who in one way or the other facilitate the execution of the common, design, is itself tantamount to actual participation in the 'criminal act'. the essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of th action to bring about a particular result. Such consensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by all of them (emphasis added) In view of the discussion above, fore to attribute any act or gesture on suggest that Raj Kali In fact, appellants No.2 and 3 were engaged in scuffle with other members of the complainant developed. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that failed to justify its version of events in order to reasonable doubt. As such, neither be invoked against the 11. Furthermore, complainant party is portrayed as aggressors. As a judgment dated Nagar at Jagadhari has convicted injured-Ram Singh evident that both p SB-2003 (O&M) 6 an offence involving physical violence, however, e application of Section 34 that the person who instigates or aids the commission of the crime must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime for the purpose of the facilitating or promoting the offence, the commission of which is the aim of the joint criminal venture. Such presence of those who in one way or the other facilitate the execution of the common, design, is itself tantamount to actual participation in the 'criminal act'. the essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Such consensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by all of them (emphasis added) In view of the discussion above, nothing has been brought attribute any act or gesture on appellants No.2 and 3 Raj Kali was hit by a tractor in furtherance of a common object. In fact, appellants No.2 and 3 were engaged in scuffle with other members of the complainant party as such, there was no occasion Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that failed to justify its version of events in order to breach the reasonable doubt. As such, neither Section 307 invoked against the appellants. Furthermore, the present matter involves a cross case complainant party is portrayed as aggressors. As a judgment dated 10.03.2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar at Jagadhari has convicted the complainant Ram Singh under Sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. evident that both parties participated in the quarrel and injured the other side. an offence involving physical violence, however, it is essential for e application of Section 34 that the person who instigates or aids the commission of the crime must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime for the purpose of the facilitating or promoting the offence, the commission of which of the joint criminal venture. Such presence of those who in one way or the other facilitate the execution of the common, design, is itself tantamount to actual participation in the 'criminal act'. the essence of Section 34 is simultaneous e minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Such consensus can be developed at the spot and thereby intended by all of them. …” nothing has been brought to the nts No.2 and 3 that could even was hit by a tractor in furtherance of a common object. In fact, appellants No.2 and 3 were engaged in scuffle with other members of occasion for a consensus to have Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution has breach the threshold of beyond nor Section 34 of the IPC can the present matter involves a cross case where the complainant party is portrayed as aggressors. As a matter of fact, vide dditional Sessions Judge, Yamuna complainant- Sher Singh as well as under Sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, it is arties participated in the quarrel and injured the other side. MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB The family has been facing the agony of trial for the last 27 years perusal of the respective custody certificates would No.1 has undergone 2 years 5 months and 29 undergone 11 days and appellant No.3 has undergone 2 months and 17 days of custody. As such, will be met if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the custody already undergone by them. prescribed under Sections 12. In Deo Narain Mandal v a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element i case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to b arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 13. Furthe Ravada Sasikala v imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by SB-2003 (O&M) 7 he family has been facing the agony of trial for the last 27 years perusal of the respective custody certificates would No.1 has undergone 2 years 5 months and 29 undergone 11 days and appellant No.3 has undergone 2 months and 17 days of custody. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the custody already undergone by them. Moreover, no minimum punishment has been under Sections 323/325/34 of IPC. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to b arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by he family has been facing the agony of trial for the last 27 years and a perusal of the respective custody certificates would indicate that appellant No.1 has undergone 2 years 5 months and 29 days, appellant No.2 has undergone 11 days and appellant No.3 has undergone 2 months and 17 days of this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the custody Moreover, no minimum punishment has been . State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of s vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. r, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in . State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-573-SB evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nat the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 14. Consequently, the present appeal is disp terms: (i) Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari modified to the ex Section 307 IPC the conviction Section 34 IPC is (ii) learned also stands modified as reduced to the duration of custody already undergone by them. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 07.04.2025 manisha Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable SB-2003 (O&M) 8 evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nat the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. Consequently, the present appeal is disp The judgment dated 10.03.2003 Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari modified to the extent that the conviction Section 307 IPC read with Section the conviction of the appellants under Section 34 IPC is maintained. (ii) The order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari also stands modified as the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the duration of custody already undergone by them. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari is nt that the conviction of the appellants under read with Section is set aside. Needless to say under Sections 323, 325 read with order of sentence dated 11.03.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the duration of custody already undergone by them. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment