Santokh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Santokh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly accepted: conviction maintained; substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 years modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone (01 year, 03 months and 11 days); fine of Rs.10,000/- retained, to be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks if not paid earlier, failing which the complete trial-court sentence revives.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court against appellant Surender Singh under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 and 34 IPC ought to be interfered with or maintained. +1 more

Court's answer

The conviction recorded by the trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence on record is maintained; this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction.

Ratio / Principle

While maintaining the conviction, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him (actual custody of 01 year, 03 months and 11 days), it being in the interest of justice and the appellant being uninvolved in any other criminal case or activity after the conviction.

Key takeaways

The fine as imposed by the trial Court remains unchanged notwithstanding the reduction of the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.ratio¶21
If the fine is not paid earlier, it shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶22
The appeal qua appellant Santokh Singh, who expired on 10.06.2012, stands disposed of as abated.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., oral) in CRA-S-1673-SB-2004, decided 10.07.2025: Appeal against the conviction of appellant Surender Singh by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa (judgment dated 09.08.2004) in FIR No.106 dated 26.06.2000, Police Station Sadar Dabwali, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 and 34 IPC, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. Appeal qua co-appellant Santokh Singh (expired 10.06.2012) stood disposed of as abated. None appeared for the appellants; the Court found the conviction recorded after proper appreciation of the evidence and maintained it. Since the appellant had undergone actual custody of 01 year, 03 months and 11 days and was not involved in any other criminal case or activity after the conviction, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; the fine was retained, to be deposited within four weeks if not paid earlier, failing which the complete trial-court sentence was to be carried out. Appeal partly accepted and disposed of. Endorsed speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

102

CRA-S-1673-SB-2004 Date of Decision:-10.07.2025

SANTOKH SINGH AND ORS. …..APPELLANTS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ….RESPONDENT

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:None for the appellants.

Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Out of the two appellants, one of them namely Santokh Singh has already expired. Copy of the death cer�ficate available on record would reveal that he had expired on 10.06.2012 and as such appeal qua the said appellant-Santokh Singh stands disposed of having aba�ed.

Appellant-Surender Singh was tried by Ld. Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Sirsa in a case arising out of FIR No.106 dated 26.06.2000 under Sec�ons 323, 324, 326, 307 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Sta�on Sadar Dabwali. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted vide judgment dated 09.08.2004 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine.

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this appeal was filed.

Today nobody is appearing on behalf of the appellants. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court and finds that convic�on has been recorded a�er proper apprecia�on of the evidence on record. This Court does not find any reason so as to interfere in the

PRIYANKA 2025.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-1673-SB-2004

impugned judgment of convic�on and as such, the same is hereby maintained.

However as far as the impugned order of sentence is concerned it is no�ced that appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

Counsel for the respondent-State states that the appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 year, 03 months and 11 days and further states that appellant is neither involved in any other criminal case nor involved in any criminal ac�vity a�er the impugned convic�on.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus�ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic�on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same.

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

Disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

July, 10, 2025 Pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No

PRIYANKA 2025.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 2 of 2