##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)

CRA-S-3154-SB-2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-3154-SB-2012 (O&M)

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT OPERATIVE PART PRO- UPLOADED

RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED NOUNCED OR FULL ON

ON

13.05.2026 20.05.2026 FULLY PRONOUNCED 20.05.2026

Vikas Kumar & another ... Appellant(s)

VS.

State of UT Chandigarh ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, APP UT, Chandigarh.

Mr. K. Bhatnagar, Advocate for

Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate

for the complainant-victim.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Section

49 28.02.2010 Sector 11, Chandigarh 307/506/34 IPC

Criminal Case number before the Sessions Case No.000019 of 25.10.2010

Sessions Court Com.ID No.36014R0136042010

Date of Decision 09.10.2012

Names of convicts/appellants Vikas Kumar;

Rahul

Conviction under section 307/34 IPC

Sentence imposed RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs.1000/- each.

1. Seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction, whereby the appellant-

convicts stand convicted and sentenced, as noticed above, they have approached this Court

by way of the present criminal appeal.

2. Vide order dated 02.11.2012 of this Court, the present appeal was admitted and

vide subsequent order dated 08.01.2013, sentence awarded to the appellants was suspended

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.05.20 17:07

I attest to the accuracy and integrity

of this order/judgment

Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh

(cid:3)(cid:2)

CRA-S-3154-SB-2012

during the pendency of this appeal.

3. At the outset, counsel for the appellants submitted that he is not arguing the case

on merits, but would be content and satisfied if the sentence awarded to the appellant-

convicts is reduced to the period already undergone by them. He further submitted that the

pendency of the criminal prosecution itself has been a punishment, as it has depleted all

their financial resources and caused continuous mental trauma. He also submitted that the

appellants undertake not to repeat the offence, to live as decent human beings, and assure

this Court that they shall be law-abiding citizens in future.

4. The applicant-convicts have also filed CRM-38522-2025 under Section 528 BNSS

read with Section 359 BNSS for compounding of offences on the basis of the compromise

effected between the appellant Vikas Kumar and the victim. It has been submitted that the

appellants were convicted in the year 2012 and, since then, circumstances have changed

considerably. One accused, namely Sunil @ Taga, had already been declared a proclaimed

offender during the trial, whereas accused Ravinder was acquitted. The remaining two

accused-convicts have rebuilt their relationship with the victim and have resolved all their

disputes long ago. They no longer bear any grudge against each other and the matter now

stands amicably compromised between appellant Vikas Kumar and the victim.

5. Counsel for the complainant-victim did not dispute the submissions made on

behalf of the appellants.

6. On the basis of the custody certificates dated 13.05.2026 pertaining to the

appellant-convicts, learned State counsel opposed the prayer made on behalf of the

appellants on the ground that they have been convicted for a heinous offence punishable

under Section 307 IPC and have undergone only about four to five months of the actual

sentence awarded to them.

7. At this stage, counsel for the appellants, while referring to the mitigating circum-

stances, submitted that both the appellants are first offenders and at the relevant time of

commission of alleged offence, they were 18 and 22 years of age. Their entire future lies

ahead of them and they deserve an opportunity for reformation and course correction.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties as well as the State.

9. Perusal of the custody certificate reflects that appellant(s) have already undergone

about 4 to 5 months of the substantive sentenced of 2 years imposed upon them.

10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as

le