IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (212) Kirpal Singh & others State of Punjab CORAM : Present:- RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI 1. petitioners. He has also filed a status report in respect of death of the petitioner No.1 Kirpal Singh. As per it, he has expired on 08.01.2026. is no intimation about deposit/payment of view death of disposed of as abated subject to deposit/payment of fine imposed on him out of estate left behind by him, if any. If his LRs intend to present petition in respect of fine, they shall be at liberty to move appropriate application in that regard. 2. Kirpal Singh, in furtherance of their common inten area of Police Station Kurali, with sharp edged weapons act led to the registration of the FIR in question and their ultimate trial by the concerned Magistrate. On completion of trial IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kirpal Singh & others Versus State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Mr.D.K.Prajapati, Mr.Mahender Joshi, Advocates, for Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kuljit Singh, Addl.AG, Punjab. RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral) Learned State Counsel has filed custody certificates of the petitioners. He has also filed a status report in respect of death of the petitioner No.1 Kirpal Singh. As per it, he has expired on 08.01.2026. is no intimation about deposit/payment of view death of the petitioner No.1 Kirpal Singh, the present petition qua him is disposed of as abated subject to deposit/payment of fine imposed on him out of estate left behind by him, if any. If his LRs intend to present petition in respect of fine, they shall be at liberty to move appropriate application in that regard. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and the above Kirpal Singh, in furtherance of their common inten area of Police Station Kurali, caused hurt with sharp edged weapons and grievous hu act led to the registration of the FIR in question and their ultimate trial by the oncerned Magistrate. On completion of trial IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3198-2009 Decided on : 07.07.2026 ……Petitioners Versus ……Respondent RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Mr.D.K.Prajapati, Mr.Mahender Joshi, Advocates, for Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kuljit Singh, Addl.AG, Punjab. , J. (Oral) Learned State Counsel has filed custody certificates of the petitioners. He has also filed a status report in respect of death of the petitioner No.1 Kirpal Singh. As per it, he has expired on 08.01.2026. There is no intimation about deposit/payment of fine by him. However, keeping in petitioner No.1 Kirpal Singh, the present petition qua him is disposed of as abated subject to deposit/payment of fine imposed on him out of estate left behind by him, if any. If his LRs intend to continue with the present petition in respect of fine, they shall be at liberty to move appropriate As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and the above-stated Kirpal Singh, in furtherance of their common intention, on 16.09.2004, in the caused hurt to the complainant Balwant Singh and grievous hurt with blunt weapons. Their such act led to the registration of the FIR in question and their ultimate trial by the oncerned Magistrate. On completion of trial, they were convicted under Learned State Counsel has filed custody certificates of the petitioners. He has also filed a status report in respect of death of the There fine by him. However, keeping in petitioner No.1 Kirpal Singh, the present petition qua him is disposed of as abated subject to deposit/payment of fine imposed on him out continue with the present petition in respect of fine, they shall be at liberty to move appropriate stated in the to the complainant Balwant Singh r such act led to the registration of the FIR in question and their ultimate trial by the SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left (212) CRR-3198-2009 -2- Section 324 read with Section 34 and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were imposed sentence of 6 months each under the said sections which were to run concurrently. They filed an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. However, their such appeal was dismissed by the Court concerned on 28.11.2009. Aggrieved of such dismissal, they filed the present petition. Their sentences were suspended on 02.02.2010. Since then, they are stated to be on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Ram Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Kamaljit Singh has made a statement at Bar that the petitioners have instructed him to state before this Court that they do not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction but leniency may be shown to them in the matter of imposition of sentence. He also states that out of the maximum imprisonment of 6 months each, the said petitioners have already undergone substantive custody period of 2 months and 6 days each. 5. Per contra, Learned State Counsel opposes the said plea but has filed the custody certificates of the petitioners showing that the said petitioners have undergone a period of 2 months and 6 days each out of the sentence imposed on them. Same be scanned and placed at appropriate place. 6. The occurrence in question is stated to have taken place on 16.09.2004. During pendency of the present petition, one of the petitioners has already died. At the time of passing the judgment by the concerned Magistrate, the petitioner Ram Singh was aged 55 years whereas the petitioner Sukhdeep Singh was aged 22 years and the petitioner Kamaljit Singh was aged 35 years. A period of more than 22 years has elapsed since the date of SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left (212) CRR-3198-2009 -3- occurrence. The said petitioners have already undergone a protracted criminal proceedings. Custody certificates filed today show that they have no other case registered against them. No previous conviction has also been shown against them in the same. In view thereof, I find the present matter to be a fit one for reducing the sentence imposed on the said petitioners to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction are confirmed but the sentences imposed on the said three petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of payment of fine is maintained. 7. The present revision petition is partly allowed in the above-stated terms. All interim application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) July 7, 2026 JUDGE sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : No Whether Reportable : No SAILESH RANJAN 2026.07.07 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left