Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011774
CRA-S-1621-SB-2004 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:011774 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 RA-S-1621-SB-2004 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 29.01.2024
Krishan Kumar and others
.....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated
31.07.2004,passedbythelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge(Adhoc),FastTrack
Court, Kurukshetra, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as
under:
Krishan Kumar, Bhim Sain and Satpal
Offence u/s Imprisonment Fine Default sentence
3 08 read with RI for two years and Rs.1000/- RI three months
Section 34 six months
IPC
3 53 read with RI for one year Rs.500/- RI one month
Section 34
IPC
6 1(1)(a) of RI for one year and six Rs.5000/- RI two months
Punjab Excise months
Act, 1914.
Satish Kumar
Offence u/s Imprisonment Fine Default sentence
6 1(1)(a) read R
I for one year and six Rs.5000/- RI two months
with Section months
67 of Punjab
Excise Act,
1914.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011774
CRA-S-1621-SB-2004 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:011774 2
All the sentences of Krishan Kumar, Bhim Sain and Satpal were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Succinctly,thefactsarethaton01.09.1997,whenSubInspectorMam
Chandalongwithotherpoliceofficialswereonpatrollingdutyinconnectionwith
the checking of miscreants and excise inspection, they received a secret
information and apprehended the accused,whoweretravellinginatruck,loaded
with 499 bottles of liquor in jute bags, after a chase in which they hit the
barricades andeventriedtoturnoverthepolicejeep.Therequisitesampleswere
drawn and sealed. Ruqa was sent on the basis of which an FIR was registered.
3. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused and the case of the
accused-appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions. On finding a prima
faciecase,chargeswereframedagainstthem,towhichtheypleadednotguiltyand
claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 8
witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313Cr.P.C.,wherebyincriminatingevidencewasputtothem,whichtheydenied.
They pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence was led in defence.
5. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the
conclusionthatprosecutionhasproveditscasebeyondanyreasonabledoubt,and
accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para No.1
above.
6. Aggrieved appellants are before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, gives up the
challenge to their conviction and prays for reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone by appellant No.1, aged 73 years, is 01 month and 17 days,
appellant No.2, aged 65 years, 03 months and 12 days, appellant No.3, aged 51
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011774
CRA-S-1621-SB-2004 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:011774 3
years,22days,andappellantNo.4isaged65yearsonthegroundthattheyarenot
involved in any other case under IPC; belong to poor strata of society; sole
breadwinner of the family; appellant Nos. 2 and 3havechildrenofmarriageable
age;appellantNo.4wasstatedtobeownerofthetruckbutwasnotitsoccupantat
therelevanttime;theynevermisusedtheconcessionofbailandhavebeenfacing
the agony of protracted trial for the last 27 years.
8. LearnedStatecounselopposestheappealonthegroundthatthetrial
Court after evaluating the evidence has rightly convicted the appellants and the
sentence awarded to them cannot be said to be excessive,therefore,hepraysfor
the dismissal of the present appeal. He, however, affirms the fact of the
non-involvementoftheappellantsinanyothercaseunderIPCasperthecustody
certificates
9. Heard thelearnedcounseloneithersideandperusedtherecordwith
their able assistance.
10. Evidently, PW8- InspectorMamChandhaddeposedthatonbasisof
the secret information regarding selling the liquor in the area, barricade was put
and nakabandi was done. A truck bearing No.HYQ 2754 seen coming from
Ambala side, a signal was given to stop but the driver instead of doing so,
accelerated the speed. The accused-appellants while trying to escape, broke the
barricades and rather tried to run them over. When the police chased them, the
driverofthetruckswervedittowardsthepolicejeepwithanintentiontomakeit
over turn, but themishapwasavertedbyitsdriverhavingtakendueprecautions.
The truck was later on intercepted after crossing Markanda-river and the
occupants alighted from the same and fled towards the Nursery. The said
statementstoodcorroboratedbyPW7,SIDharamvir,whowasalsoaccompanying
PW8, Insp. Mam Chand. On going through the evidence on record, the
prosecution case is found well established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011774
CRA-S-1621-SB-2004 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:011774 4
Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, therefore, there is no
scopeforinterferenceinthefindingsrecordedandconclusionarrivedat.Assuch,
the conviction of the appellants is upheld.
11. Insofarastheprayerforreducingthesentenceoftheappellantstothe
period already undergone is concerned, it would be worthwhile to make a
reference to the judgment in Nafeesa vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi, 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 6506, wherein the accused was convicted under Section
308/341/323/34 IPC and Hon'ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of
imprisonment to the period already undergone by her, considering that the
occurrence took place in 2003 and she was not involved in any other criminal
case.
12. As regards, conviction under Section 353/34 IPC is concerned, a
referencecanbemadetoHaribhauvs.StateofMaharashtra(2018)18SCC43,
wherein the appellant had given kicks and blows and was thus convicted under
Sections 353, 504 and 294 read with Section 34 IPC, however Hon'ble the
Supreme Court while considering the fact that 13 years lapsed since the date of
incident, had reduced his sentence to the period already undergone by him and
instead more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.
13. This Court in Amarbeer Singh and another vs. State of Punjab
CRR-139-2008, decided on 24.05.2003, where the appellants were convicted
under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, reduced the sentence to
already undergone, as the petitioners were sole breadwinners of their respective
families,nevermisusedtheconcessionofbailandhadfacedtheagonyoftrialfor
20 years.
14. Viewing humanistically, the appellantshavingsufferedtheignominy
of trial since long; successfully warded off their crime-proneness-an evident
learning of a lesson; their socio-economic circumstances, this Court finds
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011774
CRA-S-1621-SB-2004 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:011774 5
extenuationtobeimplicit.Thus,itwouldservetheendsofjusticetoreducetheir
sentence to the period already undergone, however, keeping the fine intact.
15. The order of sentence dated 31.07.2004 is modified totheaforesaid
extent and as such, the present petition stands partly allowed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
2 9.01.2024 JUDGE
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011774
5 of 5
