Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition partly accepted and disposed of: conviction under Sections 323/325 IPC maintained; sentence modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone (28 days actual custody per custody certificate); fine of Rs.500/- retained unchanged and, if not paid earlier, to be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court is to be carried out.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of sentence imposed on the petitioner (conviction under Sections 323/325 IPC not being pressed against) should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

Court's answer

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances (petitioner having already undergone 28 days actual custody, having no criminal antecedents per the custody certificate, and the learned State counsel not seriously objecting), it will be in the interest of justice to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is partly accepted; by maintaining the impugned judgment against conviction, the order of sentence is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.

Key takeaways

The amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the appellant (petitioner) will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.ratio¶28
As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain the same (unchanged) despite the modification of the sentence of imprisonment.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR-1533-2011 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Deepak Gupta, J., oral, decided 15.07.2025): Sukhdev Singh, convicted under Sections 323/325 IPC arising out of FIR No. 92 dated 01.10.2005 of Police Station Phul by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul vide judgment dated 02.02.2010 (RI 02 years under Section 325 IPC with fine of Rs.500/-, default RI three months; RI 06 months under Section 323 IPC), had his sentence reduced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 09.07.2011 to RI one year under Section 325 IPC (fine Rs.500/-, default RI three months) and RI six months under Section 323 IPC. Not pressing the petition against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner confined his prayer to the order of sentence, seeking imprisonment for the period already undergone (28 days actual custody; no criminal antecedents per custody certificate placed on record by the respondent-State); the learned State counsel did not seriously object. Held: in the interest of justice, the period of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone; the impugned judgment against conviction was maintained; the fine was left unchanged and, if not paid earlier, is to be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned within four weeks, failing which the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court is to be carried out. Petition partly accepted and disposed of. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203

CRR-1533-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:-15.07.2025

SUKHDEV SINGH …..Pe��oner

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB ….Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate, for the pe��oner.

Ms. Pra�bha Bali, AAG, Punjab.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Pe��oner was tried by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul in a case arising out of FIR No. 92 dated 01.10.2005, under Sec�ons 323/325 IPC, registered at Police Sta�on Phul. A�er trial, the pe��oner was convicted under Sec�ons 323/325 IPC vide judgment dated 02.02.2010 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Sec�on 325 for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and under Sec�on 323 for a period of 06 months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved thereto, the pe��oner had filed criminal appeal which was partly accepted vide judgment dated 09.07.2011 by learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Bathinda and modified the sentence which runs as under:-

Under Sec�on 325 IPC	:	rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year
		and to pay fine of ₹500/- with default sentence of
		three months rigorous imprisonment in case of
		non-payment of fine
Under Sec�on 323 IPC	:	rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months

PRIYANKA 2025.07.16 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRR-1533-2011 (O&M)

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

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

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the assessment year 2005; that pe��oner-Sukhdev Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 28 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

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

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that pe��oner-Sukhdev Singh has already undergone actual custody sentence of 28 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents.

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 pe��oner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Consequently, the present pe��on 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 pe��oner 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

PRIYANKA 2025.07.16 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 2 of 3

CRR-1533-2011 (O&M)

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 15, 2025 Pry

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No

PRIYANKA 2025.07.16 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 3 of 3