Ram Babu Vs State of Punjab

Pe��oner Ram Babu was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Camp at Amloh in a case arising out of FIR No.38 dated 21.04.1998 under Sec�ons 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC registered at Police Sta�on Gobindgarh. A�er trial, the pe��oner was convicted under Sec�ons 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC vide judgment dated 30.07.2004 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and to pay maximum fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. On appeal, the judgment of convic�on and order of sentence were upheld by the Court of learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment dated 03.10.2007.

¶12

Against the abovesaid convic�on and sentence, this pe��on

¶13

was filed.

¶14

Today learned counsel for the pe��oner stated at the outset that pe��oner does not press the pe��on against the judgment of

¶15

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRR-2108-2007 (O&M) -2-

¶17

convic�on; and that pe��oner confines his prayer only against 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.

¶18

Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 1998; that pe��oner was young person of 27 years at that �me; that pe��oner has already undergone total sentence of 04 months and 11 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

¶19

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

¶20

The custody cer�ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that pe��oner has already undergone total sentence of 04 months and 11 days. It is revealed further that he had no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a�er his convic�on, pe��oner has been involved in any other case. He was 27 years of age at the �me of offence, which had taken place way back in 1998 i.e. 27 years back.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

¶24

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRR-2108-2007 (O&M) -3-

¶26

concerned, within a period of four weeks’ from today, failing which the pe��oner will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trial Court.

¶27

Disposed of.

¶28

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶29

July 02, 2025

¶30

Nee�ka Tuteja

¶31

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶32

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.02 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Babu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu v. State of Punjab

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

(O&M) Manohar Lal Aggarwal Vs Anita Sood and Ors.

Uhbvnl and Others Vs Ram Niwas

Des Raj Vs State of Pb.

Shamsher Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Ors.

Resham Singh and Others Vs Kaur Singh and Others

(O&M) Khem Chand etc. Vs Ranjit etc.