Amardeep Vs State of Haryana

Appellant was tried by Ld. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad in a case arising out of FIR No.11 dated 03.01.2002 under Sec�ons 325/307/34 IPC, registered at Police Sta�on Tohana. A�er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec�ons 325/307/34 IPC vide judgment of convic�on dated 21.08.2006 and order of quantum dated 22.08.2006 by the trial Court and he was sentenced to undergo as under:-

¶15

Under Sec�on 307 IPC	: rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years
	and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- with default sentence of six months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine
Under Sec�on 325 IPC	: rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- with default
	sentence of two months simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine

¶16

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

¶17

filed.

¶18

PRIYANKA 2025.07.18 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRA-S-1987-SB-2006

¶20

Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic�on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against quantum of sentence. It is submi�ed that appellant would be sa�sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

¶21

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that appellant was of 25 years at that �me; that the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 26 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶22

Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.

¶23

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 26 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. He was 25 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 years back.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

PRIYANKA 2025.07.18 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

CRA-S-1987-SB-2006

¶30

appellant will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

¶31

Disposed of.

¶32

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE July 18, 2025 Pry Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No