Partly allowed¶24

Balkar Singh and Ors. v. State of Hry

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2025CRA-S/2344/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral), CRA-S-2344-SB-2004, decided April 24, 2025: sentence-reduction appeal by Kabal Singh (co-appellants Wazir Singh and Gurnam Singh abated on death) arising from FIR No.177/31.07.2001, PS Madlauda, conviction under 307/34 IPC (R.I. 5 years + fine `5,000/-, S.I. 6 months default), 324/34 IPC (R.I. 6 months) and 30 Arms Act (R.I. 3 months); conviction upheld, sentence reduced to period already undergone (02 months 20 days); fine payable within 4 weeks failing which full sentence revives; appeal partly accepted/disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly accepted: conviction maintained; sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone; unpaid fine of `5,000/- to be deposited within four weeks, failing which the complete original sentence revives. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on appellant Kabal Singh should be reduced to the period already undergone, the appeal against conviction having been not pressed.

¶14

Court's answer

While maintaining the impugned judgment against 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.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Reduction of imprisonment to the period already undergone is in the interest of justice, given that the offence took place way back in 2001 (i.e. 24 years back), the appellant was 36 years of age at the time, and he has undergone 02 months and 20 days actual custody; this avoids sending him behind bars with hardened criminals.

¶23

Key takeaways

The amount of fine, if not paid earlier, 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¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (CRA-S-2344-SB-2004) — conviction under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC and Section 30 Arms Act recorded by Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat in FIR No.177 dated 31.07.2001, PS Madlauda (Sections 148, 149, 324, 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act) — proceedings against co-appellants Wazir Singh and Gurnam Singh abated on their death (order dated 19.07.2023) — appeal not pressed against conviction; confined to sentence — offence 24 years old, appellant 36 years of age at the time, actual custody undergone 02 months and 20 days, State counsel not seriously objecting — conviction maintained; sentence modified to the period already undergone; fine of `5,000/-, if unpaid, to be deposited within four weeks failing which the complete sentence revives — appeal partly accepted and disposed of.

¶1

103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA-S-2344-SB-2004 Date of Decision: April 24, 2025

¶3

Kabal Singh and others … Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Ms. Diksha, Amicus Curiae for the appellants.

¶8

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶10

Out of three appellants, whose convic�on was recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat in a case arising out of FIR No.177 dated 31.07.2001, registered at Police Sta�on Madlauda, under Sec�ons 148, 149, 324, 307 IPC, besides Sec�on 25 of the Arms Act, proceedings qua two of them, namely, Wazir Singh and Gurnam Singh were ordered to be abated by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 on account of their death. As such, the present appeal was confined to appellant – Kabal Singh.

¶11

Appellant – Kabal Singh was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under:-

¶12

Sr. No.	Offence	Sentence (R.I)	Fine	Further sentence in case of non-payment of fine
1.	307/34 IPC	05 years	`5,000/-	S.I. for 06 months
2.	324/34 IPC	06 months	--	--
3.	30 Arms Act	03 months	--	--

¶13

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

¶14

Today learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant – Kabal Singh 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 order 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.

¶15

Learned Amicus Curiae points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that appellant was young person of 36 years at that �me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 02 months and 20 days Sarita Rani 2025.04.25 11:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶16

CRA-S-2344-SB-2004

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

2025:PHHC:052821

¶19

and is involved in two other cases, in which he is on bail and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶20

Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the

¶21

aforesaid prayer.

¶22

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 02 months and 20 days. He was young person of 36 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 years back.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Disposed of.

¶27

April 24, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶28

Sarita Rani 2025.04.25 11:25 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Balkar Singh and Ors. v. State of Hry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkar Singh and Ors. v. State of Hry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sham Lal Vs State of Haryana

M/S Munak Chem.Etc. Vs State of Pb.

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Puneet Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Suresh Singh Vs State of Punjab