[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jassa Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 16 December, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRR-1927-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1927-2015
Jassa Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON
RESERVED PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR
ON ON FULL
18.11.2025 16.12.2025 FULL PRONOUNCED 16.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
176 05.11.2007 MallanWala 324, 325, 323/34 IPC
Case No. Sessions Trial No. RBT-25 of 2008
Date of Decision: 29.08.2014
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 29.09.2014
Date of Decision: 25.03.2015
Convict's name Penal provision Sentence
Jassa Singh 325, 326/34, 324/34 IPC Substantive sentence: RI for
two years with fine of
Rs.2000/-
Massa Singh 326, 325/34, 324/34 IPC Substantive sentence: RI for
three years with fine of
Rs.3000/-
Gurdev Singh 326/34, 325/34, 324 IPC Substantive sentence: RI for
one year with fine of
Rs.2000/-
1. The convicts/petitioners, who have been convicted and sentenced in the matter
captioned above, after dismissal of their appeal, have come up before this court by filing
the present revision petition for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRR-1927-2015
sentence dated 29.08.2014 and judgment dated 25.03.2015 whereby the appellate Court
had affirmed the judgment of trial Court.
2. In the above-captioned sessions trial, accused were prosecuted for committing an
offense punishable under Sections 325, 326, 324 r/w 34 IPC. Vide judgment dated
29.08.2014, accused persons, namely Jassa Singh, Massa Singh and Gurdev Singh
(petitioners), were found guilty and were convicted under Sections 325, 326, 324 r/w 34
IPC and sentenced accordingly.
3. On 18th November 2025, when the matter was heard, counsel appearing for the
convicts submitted that he would be confining his submissions only for reduction of
sentence because the incident is 18 years old and the case is pending before this Court
itself from the last 10 years and during the interregnum, there is no allegation against any
of the convict of re-indulging in crime.
4. State counsel opposes such prayer.
5. An analysis of the arguments on reduction of sentence would lead to the following
outcome. Whenever a convict ask for reduction of sentence, then the first advantage
which the prosecution or the complainant gets is that the conviction is upheld, it means
that the prosecution or the complainant succeeds in their allegation which would further
reduce the risk of any suit for recovery /damage for false implication or failure of the
case.
6. Thus, whenever a request for reduction of sentence is made, one of the
foundational reasons to reduce the sentence is that the convicts are not challenging their
conviction which substantiates the allegations made by the complainant and the
prosecution lodged by the State. However, how much reduction is to be given, this aspect
has to be considered along with other mitigating factors which have to be highlighted
separately.
7. In the present case, the first circumstance for reduction of the sentence is that the
trial is of the year 2007 i.e. as of date 18 years have passed when the occurrence had
taken place and the case is still pending. It is not that the case is pending because of the
adjournments sought by the petitioner alone, however the primary reason for pendency of
the case including the trial was the massive pendency before the Courts and the
workload. Thus the petitioner-accused cannot be blamed for the pendency and for the last
18 years, the sword of Damocles has been hanging over their head. On this ground alone,
applicants are entitled to reduction of 1% for every year's delay which would amount to
18% reduction.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRR-1927-2015
8. The next reason for reduction is that as per the counsel for the applicants, the
petitioners are poor and have try to improve and did not indulge in any other offense
during the pendency of the petition.
9. The third reason for reduction of sentence is that applicant Jassa Singh has already
undergone a sentence of 01 year, 11 months and 06 days out of total sentence of 02 years,
applicant Massa Singh has undergone 01 year, 10 months and 17 days out of 03 years and
the third convict Gurdev Singh has undergone 09 months and 29 days out of the
maximum sentence of 01 year respectively, as per custody certificate dated 17.11.2025.
10. Thus, in the entirety of all the factors mentioned above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that considering the sentence already undergone, the delay in trial, the
time for which the FIR was pending against the convicts and their remorse would entitle
them that the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that which they have already
undergone.
11. Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed. Judgment of conviction dated
29.08.2014 affirmed vide judgment dated 25.03.2015 is upheld, however, the sentence
awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.
Since the petitioners have already been released from custody, as such their bail bonds
are discharged, surety bonds are also discharged. Case property be destroyed, if not
already destroyed within six months. Amount of fine is forfeited to State. All pending
application(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
16.12.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
