Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S No. 3885-SB of 2017
Decided On : 22-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mrs. Sushma Suman, Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Mr. Manish Dadwal AAG, Haryana

The court found that considerations of time served and rehabilitation justified the modification of the sentence in favor of the appellants.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the appeal of three convicted individuals under IPC Sections 328 and 392, where the court reviews the justification for modifying their sentences. The court noted the appellants' hardships during an extended trial and their reformed status, ultimately deciding to alter their sentences to time served. The court upheld the conviction while moderating the sentence to that already undergone. The fine imposed was maintained, mandating payment within a specified timeframe.

Table of Content
1. prosecution's case established and convictions upheld. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. argument focused on modified sentencing due to time already served. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. confessions and evidence supported the prosecution's claims. (Para 11 , 12)
4. judicial discretion in sentencing, necessity of reasons for modification. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final verdict modified sentence to time served. (Para 22 , 24)

Judgment

Mr. Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

By this order, three appeals, details of which have been given in the head note, are being disposed of, as they have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat whereby the appellants herein have been held guilty for commission of offence under Sections 328 , 392 read with Section 34 IPC in FIR No.288 dated 25.05.2015 registered under Sections 323 , 328, 392 IPC at Police Station City, Sonipat and sentenced to undergo following sentence:-

(i)	Dharmender	Section 328 read with Section 34 IPC	Imprisonment for a period of five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-
(ii)	Dheeraj @ Dheere	Section 328 read with Section 34 IPC	In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo further imprisonment for six months
(ii)	Manoj	Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.05.2015, an application was presented by one Nitin @ Chhotu son of Ved Parkash stating therein that on 24.05.2015 at about 5/6 PM when he was present at taxi stand, Sonipat with his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-10-W-5887, two unknown persons aged about 24-25 years approached him to hire taxi for village Bidhlan. Another boy, who was standing at Suri Petrol Pump also joined them. On the way to village Bidhlan via Kharkhoda when they crossed Kharkhoda, the aforesaid persons offered cold drink to the complainant and after consuming the same, he felt giddiness and stopped the car. However, they instructed him to drive the car towards Auchandi border. Further, due to his unconscious condition, they muffled his face and put him in rear of the car. Thereafter, they threw him at an abandoned place. It was also stated in the said application that the complainant could identify the aforesaid persons if they were produced before him. On the basis of the application submitted by him, an FIR was registered and during the course of investigation, the accused were arrested.

3. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared against the accused.

4. After making due compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed against the appellants/accused under Sections 328 , 392 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined total 9 witnesses and closed its evidence.

6. Appellants/accused did not lead any evidence in their defence.

7. After hearing arguments of both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as stated above.

CONTENTIONS

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that they are not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.07.2017 on merits and restrict their prayer to modification of the order of sentence dated 04.07.2017 on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by them. The appellants Manoj, Dharmender and Dheeraj @ Dheere were convicted under Sections 328 , 392 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and have already undergone actual custody of 2 years 19 days, 1 year 3 months 12 days and 1 year 5 months 15 days respectively.

9. Learne