Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 21 November, 2025
CRA-S-651-SB-2008 (O&M) 1
358 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-651-SB-2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.11.2025
RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present:- Mr. S.S.Duhan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG Haryana.
H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 12.02.2008 and order of sentence dated 15.02.2008 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the appellants were convicted
and sentenced to undergo as under:-
Charge: Under Sections 398, 401, 420, 471 IPC
Sentence: To undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:
(a) To undergo RI for a period of seven years each under Section 398
IPC.
(b) To undergo RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-
each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 months under Section 401 IPC.
(c) To undergo RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs.3,000/-
each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 420 IPC.
(d) To undergo RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-
each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 months under Section 471 IPC.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-3-2004 at 9.30 PM,
1 of 5
ASI Sehdev Singh alongwith other police officials was present near crossing
Hatt road, Safidon in connection Railway with patrolling duty. A secret
information was received by the said ASI that four young boys with two
motorcycles in the area of village Kurar having weapons in their hands
standing on a bridge were trying to loot the passengers and passersby.
Considering the information trustworthy, a raiding team was organized by
the said ASI. The team proceeded towards the informed place. Light atop the
vehicle with police party, was put off. When the jeep carrying the police
party reached near the bridge, one of the accused giving light by the torch
carried by him signaled the jeep to stop. When they reached near bridge, all
the four boys swarmed the jeep. The accused with pistol had come towards
the driver side. When they found the occupants of the jeep to be in police
uniform, they tried to escape but were nabbed. Enquiries. were made from
them They disclosed their identity. One pistol along with one live cartridge
was recovered from accused Hakikat and one air gun was recovered from
accused Jai Bahadur. One handle (Binda) of the shovel (Kassi) was
recovered from accused Umed Singh. Accused Ramesh was carrying an iron
rod and a torch with him was also recovered. Accused had tried to commit
robbery when they were armed with deadly weapons.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his
prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also
contends that both the appellants were 21 years and 24 years of age,
respectively and they have undergone custody for more than 02 years out of
the awarded sentence of seven years. He prays that since FIR in question
pertains to the year 2004, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order
2 of 5
on quantum by this Court.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellants and
filed the custody certificates in the Court, which are taken on record. He
further submits that the Court below has passed a well reasoned judgment
based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material placed on record.
6. The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2004 and the
appellants have already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 21 years.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State
of UP", (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held that awarding of sentence is not a mere
formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is
prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a
discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which
includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence
is committed, age of the appellants, should be considered while determining
the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or
whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be
awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the
sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.
8. Further, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the
imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent
by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim, but
also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that
opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be
3 of 5
exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing
the nature of the crime, the manner, in which the crime was committed and
conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and
the chances of reformation of the accused.
9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the Court
below indicates no perversity in their findings and the same is based on
correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned
counsel for the appellants has not assailed the judgment, rather restricted the
prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence
already undergone by the appellants.
10. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is
worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 2004.
The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and
cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellants have
already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of
more than 21 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this
prolonged period. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the
appellants deserve to be dealt with leniency. The appellants also deserves the
benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided
by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC
678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. [2023:RJ-JD:28174] (5 of 5) [CRLR-
755/2003] State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellants, their
status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to
go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would
4 of 5
be met, if sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period as
already undergone by him.
11. Accordingly, judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jind is hereby affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the Court
concerned under Sections 398, 401, 420, 471 IPC has been modified and
reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by them. The
appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are
discharged.
12. With these modifications, the present appeal is disposed of.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(H.S.GREWAL)
21.11.2025 JUDGE
Janki Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
