Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N. S. Shekhawat, J
Bhag Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-2367-SB-2008 (O&M)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashikant Gupta, Devender Arya
For the Respondents: Rajiv Sidhu

An appellate court may uphold a judgment of conviction based on corroborated eye-witness and medical evidence while exercising sentencing discretion to reduce imprisonment to the period already undergone, provided the appellants are first-time offenders and significant time has elapsed since the commission of the offence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 323, 325, 307 read with Section 149 - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Appellants were convicted for rioting and causing grievous hurt, including attempt to murder - Appellants sought leniency based on long passage of time and first-time offender status - Court found evidence sufficient to uphold conviction but modified sentence to period of incarceration already undergone while enhancing fine amount for compensation to victims. (Paras 1, 13, 16, 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for an assault that occurred on 13.10.2006, allegedly motivated by a prior dispute regarding the cutting of government trees. The victims suffered multiple injuries, including lacerated wounds and fractures. The trial court sentenced the appellants to various terms of imprisonment, including 4 years for the charge under Section 307 read with 149 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal, one appellant passed away, leading to the abatement of the appeal against him.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction given the support of the prosecution version by eye-witnesses and the consistency in medical evidence. However, noting the 19-year pendency of the case and the appellants' clear prior criminal record, the court reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone while imposing an enhanced fine of Rs. 35,000 per appellant to be paid as compensation to the injured parties.

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 323, 325, and 307 read with 149 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence, and whether the sentence warrants a reduction in light of the passage of time.

Ratio Decidendi: While the evidence establishes the guilt of the accused, the sentencing discretion allows for leniency where the appellants are first-time offenders who have maintained good conduct and the litigation has spanned nearly two decades.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction upheld, sentence reduced to time served with enhanced compensation fine.

Table of Content
1. nature of conviction and abatement due to death of an appellant. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts of the case, witness testimonies, and medical evidence assessment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. evaluation of conviction based on evidence and defense improbability. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. sentencing reduction principles and imposition of compensatory fines. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2008 and order of sentence dated 25.11.2008, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, whereby the appellants were ordered to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148,323 r/w Section 149 of IPC, 325 r/w Section 149 of IPC and 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and were sentenced as under:-

Under Section 148 IPC	R.I for a period of two years each.
Under Section 323 r/w Section 149 IPC	R.I for a period of one year each.
Under Section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC	R.I for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 02 months each.
Under Section 307 r/w Section 149 IPC	R.I for a period of four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3500 each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 04 months each.

2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant no.3 namely Des Raj had expired. Consequently, the appeal qua him stands abated and is ordered to be dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that on the night of 13.10.2006 on receipt of a medical rukka regarding admission of injured Karam Singh and Ram Pal in Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. PW10 HC Jai Kishan reached Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and sought the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to make the statement by moving an application Ex. P16. The doctor vide opinion Ex.P17 declared both the injured unfit to make the statement. 14.10.2006, S.I. Pale Ram, the then SHO of Police Station Sadar, Jagadhri reached Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and by moving an application Ex.P12 he sought the opinion of the doctor regarding their fitness to make the statement. This time also both the injured were declared unfit to make the statement. Complainant, Dharampal (PW9), brother of injured, met him and got recorded his statement Ex.P23 to the effect that he is agriculturist by profession. They are four brothers. His eldest brother Karam Singh is aged 44 years followed by Mam Chand and then Ram Pal aged 40 years. They are living jointly in dera located in the fields within the revenue estate of Village Mahmoodpur. Land of Des Raj of Village Batheri is abutting to their land. About 2/3 years ago, Des Raj etc. had cut away the government trees standing nearby the road and against that his brother Karam Singh had moved a complaint to the forest department and the money fetched from those trees is lying deposited in the government treasury. Due to that they were having grudge against them. Yesterday on 13.10.2006, at about 5 PM his brothers Ram Kumar and Karam Singh were spreading the parali on the road. In the meantime, Mohinder, Rajbir, Bhag Singh, Des Raj, Rinku, Sonu, Lakhi. Naranjan Singh residents of village Batheri and sons of Mangi and his servant came on tractor armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis and kulhari in connivance with each other and asked them as to why they were putting the parali on the road and they will teach them a lesson for making complaint to the forest department against them. Thereafter, they all while making lalkara opened the attack upon his brothers in order to kill them. Rajbir gave a gandasi blow from reverse side on the head of this brother Karam Singh. Bhag Singh also gave a kulhari blow from reverse side on the head of Karam Singh. Mohinder gave a kulhari blow from reverse side on the head of Ram Pal. Rinku gave gandasi blow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHN. S. Shekhawat, JBhag Singh – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – RespondentCRA-S-2367-SB-2008 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N. S. Shekhawat, J
Bhag Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S-2367-SB-2008 (O&M)