[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kala Singh @ Sukhmander Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 December, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
258 (2 cases) Date of decision: 11.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate,
for the petitioner in
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Both these revision petitions have been filed challenging the
judgment dated 05.05.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri
Muktsar Sahib,
Sahib dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2016 rendered
by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, vide which each of
them had been convicted and sentenced as under:
Offence u/s Sentence of Fine In default of
Imprisonment payment of fine
452 IPC 3 years Rs.200/
Rs.200/- 1 month
326 IPC 3 years Rs.200/
Rs.200/- 1 month
324 IPC 2 years Rs.200/
Rs.200/- 1 month
341 IPC 1 month Rs.200/
Rs.200/- Ten days
506 IPC 1 year Rs.200/
Rs.200/- Ten days
2. Briefly put, the factual matrix of the case is that on
CRR-206-2019 and connected cases
16.12.2012, petitioner-Jaswinder Singh gave kirpan blows on the head
and right leg of Lakhwinder Singh; one unknown person also caused
injuries to him on his right bicep while petitioner-Kala Singh caused
injuries on left forearm and middle fingers of right hand of the
complainant, with kirpan blows. When the complainant and his brother
raised alarm, Baljinder Singh came at the spot and rescued them. The
motive behind the occurrence is that the parties have a dispute with regard
to a watercourse. Hence, an FIR was lodged and challan was presented.
3. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 452,
341, 326, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the
petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the
accused-petitioners examined 8 witnesses and also placed on record
documentary evidence. On closure of the prosecution evidence,
statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances while pleading
innocence and false implication. In their defence, the accused examined 1
witness.
5. On scrutinizing the evidence on record and after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and
sentenced the accused as noticed above.
6. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment
CRR-206-2019 and connected cases
dated 05.05.2017.
7. Aggrieved accused-petitioners have preferred the present
revision petitions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submit
that they do not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction and pray for
reducing the sentence awarded to the period undergone i.e. 1 year, 1
month and 22 days by petitioner-Kala Singh @ Sukhmander Singh and 1
year, 1 month and 15 days by petitioner-Jaswinder Singh, on account of
the fact that they are first offenders; belong to poor strata of the society;
; never misused the concession of bail and have been
facing the agony of protracted trial for more than 13 years.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that both
the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution,
have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners, therefore, prays for
the dismissal of the present revision petitions. However, it remains
uncontroverted that the petitioners are not previous convicts and there is
no complaint against them of having misused the concession of bail.
10. Heard the learned counsel and perused the file.
11. Though the petitioners have not challenged the judgment of
conviction, this Court still deems it appropriate to evaluate the same. The
complainant (PW 1) and injured-Harjinder Singh (PW 2) have supported
the prosecution version. Their ocular version is corroborated by PW 4 Dr.
Rajesh Badyal and PW 8 Dr.Amit Kaur. On going through the evidence
CRR-206-2019 and connected cases
on record, the prosecution case is found well established. Thus, the trial
Court has rightly convicted the petitioners, which was affirmed by the
Appellate Court, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the
findings recorded and conclusion arrived at. As such, the conviction of the
petitioner is upheld.
12. Regarding the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that in view of the afore-stated mitigating circumstances, the sentence of
the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone, it is
apposite to make a reference to the judgment of Omanakkuttan and
others vs. State of Kerala, SLP (Crl.) No.4500 of 2019, decided on
20.11.2020 wherein the accused were convicted under Sections 324, 326,
308 read with Section 34 IPC and Hon'ble the Supreme Court reduced the
sentence of five years to 2 years, by considering that the occurrence took
place in 2002. Similarly in Arjun and Others vs. State of Haryana,
CRA-S-1134-SB-2008, decided on 07.06.2023, the sentence awarded to
the accused-appellants, who were convicted under Sections 323/34, 325/34
and 506 IPC for RI of 2 years, was reduced to the extent of already
undergone, while observing that the appellants had already suffered
sentence of 1 month, 13 days and 15 days respectively and faced the agony
of trial for almost 17 years.
CRR-206-2019 and connected cases
13. In Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court had observed that, "Whilst it is undoubtedly true that
society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming
criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But
equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds
that a civilized society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes
and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and
mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time offenders ought
to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a
bright future. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 112]".
14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Keshab Naskar vs. State,
2012 SCC OnLine Cal 9400, keeping in view that 25 long years had since
elapsed from the date of the incident, never misused the privilege of post-
conviction bail, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 IPC of 6
years was reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 14 days pre-trial
and about a month and 10 days post-trial.
15. It is a settled proposition of law that each case is to be decided
on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
16. The object of the criminal justice system is to reform the
offenders and to make them see and follow the right path. However, the
CRR-206-2019 and connected cases
ancient penological approach was of custodial measure to curb crime. A
balanced approach keeping in view the interests of the victim and accused
and their families, release on admonition, probation, etc. is the way
forward.
17. Reverting to the facts of the present case as regards the
prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, this Court
considering the judgments referred to above and the mitigating
circumstances, particularly that the petitioners are first offenders; belong
to poor strata of the society; have to take care of their respectively
families; undergone the substantive sentence, as noted above, suffering
the ignominy of trial for the last more than 13 years; after release on bail,
have not misused such concession granted to them, finds that the ends of
justice would be adequately met if the sentence of the petitioners is
ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
18. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the
petitioners, their sentence is ordered to be reduced to the period already
undergone by them. However, the fine shall remain intact.
19. With the above modification in the order of sentence dated
03.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha,
as noted above, the revision petitions are partly allowed.
20. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file(s).
11.12.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
