IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 203 MEWA RAM AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. order of conviction Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipar passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 16.08.1997 registered at Police Station 2. submits that he does not propose to assail the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court on merits. solely to the 3. on 15.08.1997, i.e. nearly 28 years ago. Even since then, the petitioners have been undergoing the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is further pointed out that after conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were released on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-591 Date of decision: MEWA RAM AND ANOTHER Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chhina, AAG, Haryana MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been of conviction and sentence dated 31 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipar, and judgment dated 17.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat 16.08.1997 under Sections 452, 324, 34 registered at Police Station Model Town, District P At the outset, learned counsel appearing for submits that he does not propose to assail the findings of conviction ded by the learned trial Court on merits. solely to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that the incident in question occurred on 15.08.1997, i.e. nearly 28 years ago. Even since then, the petitioners have dergoing the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is further pointed out that after conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were released on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 591-2008 Date of decision: August 25, 2025 …Petitioners …Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. G.S. Chhina, AAG, Haryana. been directed against the impugned 31.01.2006 passed by learned and judgment dated 17.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in case FIR No.385 452, 324, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, , District Panipat. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he does not propose to assail the findings of conviction ded by the learned trial Court on merits. The challenge is confined Learned counsel submits that the incident in question occurred on 15.08.1997, i.e. nearly 28 years ago. Even since then, the petitioners have dergoing the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is further pointed out that after conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were released on Petitioners …Respondent against the impugned .01.2006 passed by learned and judgment dated 17.03.2008 385 , the petitioners submits that he does not propose to assail the findings of conviction The challenge is confined Learned counsel submits that the incident in question occurred on 15.08.1997, i.e. nearly 28 years ago. Even since then, the petitioners have dergoing the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is further Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.27 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-591-2008 bail, and in the interregnum involved in any other criminal case, nor have they misused the concession of bail. In these circumstances, it i conduct over the years, the petitioners question of sentence. be released on probation. 4. prayer for leniency. It is contended that there were clear and specific allegations against the petitioners of crim complainant chest. Having regard to the gravity of such allegations, it is urged that the petitioners do not deserve the benefit of probation, and that no indul should be shown in the matter of sentence. 5. perused the record including the judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the conviction below are well suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The conviction of the petiti 6. 31.1.2006, the appellant had been convicted and sentenced as follows: 2008 bail, and in the interregnum of almost three decades, they have neither involved in any other criminal case, nor have they misused the concession of bail. In these circumstances, it is urged that keeping in view th conduct over the years, the petitioners deserve a lenient approach on the question of sentence. Learned counsel, therefore, pleads that the petitioners be released on probation. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for leniency. It is contended that there were clear and specific allegations against the petitioners of criminal trespass into the house of the and of inflicting knife blows on the complainant’s neck and chest. Having regard to the gravity of such allegations, it is urged that the petitioners do not deserve the benefit of probation, and that no indul should be shown in the matter of sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record including the judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the conviction. The findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below are well-reasoned, supported by the evidence on record, and do no suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The conviction of the petitioners is, therefore, affirmed. Vide impugned order and judgment of conviction dated , the appellant had been convicted and sentenced as follows: -2- of almost three decades, they have neither been involved in any other criminal case, nor have they misused the concession of s urged that keeping in view their clean deserve a lenient approach on the rned counsel, therefore, pleads that the petitioners , learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for leniency. It is contended that there were clear and specific inal trespass into the house of the and of inflicting knife blows on the complainant’s neck and chest. Having regard to the gravity of such allegations, it is urged that the petitioners do not deserve the benefit of probation, and that no indulgence I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record including the judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court’s judgment . The findings of conviction recorded by the Courts reasoned, supported by the evidence on record, and do no suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. oners is, therefore, affirmed. Vide impugned order and judgment of conviction dated , the appellant had been convicted and sentenced as follows:- been involved in any other criminal case, nor have they misused the concession of eir clean deserve a lenient approach on the rned counsel, therefore, pleads that the petitioners , learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for leniency. It is contended that there were clear and specific inal trespass into the house of the and of inflicting knife blows on the complainant’s neck and chest. Having regard to the gravity of such allegations, it is urged that the gence I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record including the judgment dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court’s judgment . The findings of conviction recorded by the Courts reasoned, supported by the evidence on record, and do no suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Vide impugned order and judgment of conviction dated Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.27 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-591-2008 Name of the accuseds Mewa Ram and Deepak Kumar 7. arises for consideration is with respect to the appropriate sentence to be imposed. 8. August 1997 and that the petitioner prolonged prison proceedings for over 28 years. learned State counsel that during the involved themselves in any other criminal activity have maintained that was extended to them. 9. serves not only the object of deterrence, but also the equally significant object of reformation. occurrence, coupled with the petitioners’ unimpeachable conduct during the last nearly three decades, is a strong indicator that they have had sufficient opportunity for introspection and have reformed themselves. 10. a long gap, would not advance the cause of justice; rather, it may operate harshly and prove counter 2008 Name of the Section(s) Sentence Mewa Ram and Deepak Kumar 324 IPC RI for 2 years 452 IPC RI for 1 year The conviction of the petitioner arises for consideration is with respect to the appropriate sentence to be It is not disputed that the occurrence in question dates back to August 1997 and that the petitioners have nged prison proceedings for over 28 years. learned State counsel that during the entire period, the petitioners have not involved themselves in any other criminal activity have maintained good conduct and have not misused the concession of bail that was extended to them. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that punishment serves not only the object of deterrence, but also the equally significant object of reformation. In the present case, the long passage of time since the occurrence, coupled with the petitioners’ unimpeachable conduct during the last nearly three decades, is a strong indicator that they have had sufficient opportunity for introspection and have reformed themselves. Sending the petitioners back to custody at this stage, after such a long gap, would not advance the cause of justice; rather, it may operate harshly and prove counter-productive. The broader interest of justice would, -3- Fine, if any, to each Sentence in default of payment of fine RI for 2 years Rs.300/- RI for 15 days Rs.200/- RI for 15 days The conviction of the petitioners is the limited question that arises for consideration is with respect to the appropriate sentence to be It is not disputed that the occurrence in question dates back to s have since faced the agony of nged prison proceedings for over 28 years. It is also not disputed by the entire period, the petitioners have not involved themselves in any other criminal activity. On the contrary, they nd have not misused the concession of bail is conscious of the settled principle that punishment serves not only the object of deterrence, but also the equally significant e, the long passage of time since the occurrence, coupled with the petitioners’ unimpeachable conduct during the last nearly three decades, is a strong indicator that they have had sufficient opportunity for introspection and have reformed themselves. Sending the petitioners back to custody at this stage, after such a long gap, would not advance the cause of justice; rather, it may operate productive. The broader interest of justice would, is the limited question that arises for consideration is with respect to the appropriate sentence to be It is not disputed that the occurrence in question dates back to since faced the agony of It is also not disputed by the entire period, the petitioners have not . On the contrary, they nd have not misused the concession of bail is conscious of the settled principle that punishment serves not only the object of deterrence, but also the equally significant e, the long passage of time since the occurrence, coupled with the petitioners’ unimpeachable conduct during the last nearly three decades, is a strong indicator that they have had sufficient Sending the petitioners back to custody at this stage, after such a long gap, would not advance the cause of justice; rather, it may operate Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.27 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-591-2008 therefore, be better served by extending to the petitioners the benefit of probation, which would strike an appropriate balance between the punitive aspect of the sentencing and jurisprudence. 11. the length of time already elapsed, the clean antecedents of the petitioners post-incident, and the overarching principle of reformative justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be approp petitioners back to custody at this juncture. 12. conviction, does not deem it appropriate to send the petitioners behind bars at this stage. It may not always be necessary in each and every case to incarcerate the offender where he/she has had an opportunity to repent for his/her wrongs. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, months on their surety of like amount, to the satisfactio concerned, with an undertaking that peace. August 25, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur 2008 fore, be better served by extending to the petitioners the benefit of probation, which would strike an appropriate balance between the punitive aspect of the sentencing and the rehabilitative objective of criminal jurisprudence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and bearing in mind the length of time already elapsed, the clean antecedents of the petitioners incident, and the overarching principle of reformative justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be approp back to custody at this juncture. This Court, in the above circumstances conviction, does not deem it appropriate to send the petitioners behind bars at this stage. It may not always be necessary in each and every case to incarcerate the offender where he/she has had an opportunity to repent for ngs. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, their entering into a bond in the sum of surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, with an undertaking that they shall maintain good conduct and , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- fore, be better served by extending to the petitioners the benefit of probation, which would strike an appropriate balance between the punitive rehabilitative objective of criminal umstances of the case, and bearing in mind the length of time already elapsed, the clean antecedents of the petitioners incident, and the overarching principle of reformative justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to send the This Court, in the above circumstances, while upholding the conviction, does not deem it appropriate to send the petitioners behind bars at this stage. It may not always be necessary in each and every case to incarcerate the offender where he/she has had an opportunity to repent for ngs. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one n of Chief Judicial Magistrate shall maintain good conduct and (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No fore, be better served by extending to the petitioners the benefit of probation, which would strike an appropriate balance between the punitive rehabilitative objective of criminal umstances of the case, and bearing in mind the length of time already elapsed, the clean antecedents of the petitioners incident, and the overarching principle of reformative justice, this Court riate to send the while upholding the conviction, does not deem it appropriate to send the petitioners behind bars at this stage. It may not always be necessary in each and every case to incarcerate the offender where he/she has had an opportunity to repent for ngs. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on six with one n of Chief Judicial Magistrate shall maintain good conduct and Jaspreet Kaur 2025.08.27 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh