Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1763 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010846




CRA-S-1560-2022                                                           - 1-


226                                                 2024:PHHC:010846

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                  ****
                                CRA-S-1560-2022
                                DECIDED ON: 25.01.2024

JARNAIL SINGH
                                                              .....APPELLANT

                                 VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                         .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present:    Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG Haryana.

            ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of

conviction dated 01.07.2022 and order of sentence dated 02.07.2022

passed by Special Judge (Electricity) Kaithal, whereby the appellant has

been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and

10 months alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for

commission of offence under Sections 136(2) of Electricity Act, 2003.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant confines

his prayer to the quantum of sentence and submits that FIR in the present

case was registered on 10.04.2019 and as such the appellant has faced the

agony of trial for a considerable period. Assertion is that the appellant has

already undergone the actual sentence of 2 years, 10 months and 6 days out

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010846

CRA-S-1560-2022 - 2-

of 3 years and 10 months SI awarded to him, therefore, prays for leniency

by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.

3. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the appellant did

not challenge his conviction on merits and only confines his relief qua

quantum of sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned

judgment as well as the relevant documents/evidence and is of the

considered view that there is no scope for any interference in impugned

judgment as far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. As such,

the conviction of the appellant is upheld.

4. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, there are

mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence

awarded by the Court below. Apart from the fact that appellant is facing

the agony of protracted trial since 2019, he has three children i.e, 2

daughters and a son; he is only bread earner of his family and there is

nobody to take care of his family. Moreover, the appellant has already

suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 6 days as on

24.01.2024, out of total substantive sentence for a period of 3 years and 10

months, therefore, some concession in substantive sentence can be

extended to him. Thus, this court is of the considered view that a chance be

given to the appellant to reform & improve himself; to become a good

citizen; and to lead a peaceful & harmonious life.

5. Taking into consideration the above narrated discussion as

well as the fact that appellant has not challenged his conviction on merits,

while affirming his conviction, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to

the period already undergone by him with no change in the fine clause.

The appellant need not to suffer remaining sentence.

                                    2 of 3

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010846




CRA-S-1560-2022                                                           - 3-

6. In view of the above discussions made hereinabove, the

present appeal stands disposed off, accordingly.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL JUDGE 25.01.2024 Meenu

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No

2. Whether reportable : Yes / No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010846

3 of 3