Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harwinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052721
2024:PHHC:052721
CRR-979-2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216 CRR-979-2011
Date of Decision : April 19, 2024
HARWINDER SINGH
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate and
Ms. Asha Singh, Advocate as legal aid counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.9.2009, as passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal vide which, the petitioner was
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 471
IPC and vide order dated 12.9.2009, he was sentenced as under:-
U/s 419 IPC RI for a period of one year and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one month.
U/s 420 IPC RI for a period of one year and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one month.
U/s 471 IPC RI for a period of one year.
2. Having aggrieved with the judgment and order (supra), the
petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. The same was dismissed by the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052721
2024:PHHC:052721
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated
5.4.2011.
3. In the instant case, the FIR was registered on the basis of a
statement, as suffered by Smt. Sushma Sharma, Lecturer, Government
College for Women Railway Road, Karnal (complainant), on the
allegations that during the examination, she found that accused-Ram
Dass, son of Rameshwar Dass, resident of Dachar P.S. Nissing, District
Karnal, was taking the B.A. Part-II, English paper, under roll no.62642 in
place of original candidate, i.e. petitioner-Harwinder Singh son of Sawan
Singh, resident of Habri, P.S. Pundri, District Kaithal. Accordingly the
complainant called the Superintendent of the University concerned and
both of them were apprehended, accused-Ram Dass, who signed as
Harvinder Singh in attendance sheet and on questioning he admitted his
fault in his own hand written statement, admitting that he is appearing in
place of petitioner-Harvinder Singh, after taking money from him, to the
supervisor. Accordingly, the Supervisor reported the matter to the SHO,
P.S. Civil Lines, Karnal and a formal FIR No.93 under Sections 419, 420,
471 IPC dated 27.3.2003 was got registered. The police arrested the
accused-Ramdass and took into possession his answer book and
admission card and initiated the investigations in this regard. The
petitioner-Harvinder was also arrested and both of them were called upon
to give their specimen hand writing whereby petitioner-Harvinder Singh
refused to give his specimen, but accused-Ram Dass consented for the
same. Accordingly, the disputed hand writings and documents were sent
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052721
2024:PHHC:052721
to FSL, Madhuban, for comparison along with admitted hand writings
and signatures of both the Accused. Ultimately, the police completed the
investigation and challan against the petitioner and co-accused-Ram Dass
was presented in the trial court concerned.
4. The investigation was carried out, and the final report qua
the petitioner was filed. Charges were framed against him under Sections
419., 420 and 471 IPC.
5. The prosecution, in order to establish charges against the
accused person, examined complainant-Smt.Sushma Sharma, Assistant
Supervisor as PW1, Sanjay Kumar as PW2, ASI Roshan Lal as PW3, Dr.
Ramjit Lal as PW4, Ram Kumar, Lab Assistant FSL, Madhuban as PW5,
Dr. Hari Parkash Sharma as PW6, Devender Singh Dhariwal as PW7.
However, no witness was examined in defence by the accused.
6. After examining the entire evidence, the learned trial court
concerned held the petitioner guilty of the charges, framed against him
and sentenced as aforesaid.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that they
do not want to address arguments on merits of the instant petition.
However, considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, they
made a prayer to reduce the sentence of the petitioner as imposed by the
learned trial court concerned, and was also upheld by the learned
appellate court concerned, to the period already undergone by the present
petitioner. They further submit that the present case was registered in
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052721
2024:PHHC:052721
the year 2003, and it is almost 21 years that the petitioner is facing the
agony of the pendency of the present criminal proceedings. Further, at
the time of commission of offence, the petitioner was of young age and
now he is well settled in his life, having grown up children and old aged
parents, to look after and he has not committed any criminal offence since
then, which further proves that the petitioner has mend his ways, and now
is very much settled in the society. The petitioner remained enlarged on
bail during the pendency of the present revision, and has never misused
the concession of the same.
8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing
the asked for relief, filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The
custody certificate of the petitioner reveals that he has undergone RI for
01 month and 14 days out of total sentence of one year imposed upon
him.
9. This Court finds merit in the prayer as made by the counsel
for the petitioner, as well as by the learned Legal Aid Counsel, qua
reduction of sentence. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner and
other aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as explained above,
while maintaining balance between deterrence against crime viz-a-viz re-
formative approach of punishment, this Court deems it fit and appropriate
to reduce the period of sentence, as imposed upon the petitioner, to the
period already undergone by him.
10. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is partly
allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 11.9.2003, passed by the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052721
2024:PHHC:052721
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal and judgment dated 5.4.2011
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, are upheld.
However, the sentence, as imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
April 19, 2024 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
5 of 5
