Gurcharan Singh Vs Amrit Singh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Gurcharan Singh Vs Amrit Singh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Section 306/34 IPC maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs. 5,000/- each retained and payable within four weeks if unpaid; CRR-653-2001 dismissed as withdrawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether, the appeal against conviction not being pressed, the sentence imposed on the aged appellants should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. +1 more

Court's answer

Appeal partly accepted: the impugned judgment against conviction is maintained, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is modified, and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

Ratio / Principle

The fine shall remain the same; if not paid earlier, it must be deposited before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within four weeks, failing which the appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence imposed by the trial court.

Key takeaways

In view of the request made in application CRM-25285-2025 and reiterated by learned counsel for petitioner No.2-applicant, revision CRR-653-2001 is dismissed as withdrawn.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA-S-485-SB-2000 (O&M) and CRR-653-2001 (with CRM-25285-2025) | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Decided 09.07.2025 | Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) | Section 306/34 IPC - Sentence reduction - Period already undergone - Aged convicts. Mukhdev Singh and Surjit Kaur, parents-in-law of deceased Shinder Pal Kaur (who died within seven years of marriage; FIR No.102 dated 10.12.1997, PS Sadar Mansa, Section 304-B IPC), were acquitted under Section 304-B IPC but convicted under Section 306/34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa (judgment dated 05.05.2000) and sentenced to two years' RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The appellants did not press the appeal against conviction and sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone (aged 87 and 86 years; 1 year 3 months 26 days and 9 months 1 day respectively already undergone, per custody certificates). Conviction maintained; sentence modified to the period already undergone; fine retained, to be deposited within four weeks, failing which the complete trial-court sentence revives. The complainant's enhancement revision CRR-653-2001 was dismissed as withdrawn upon application CRM-25285-2025. Not reportable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-485-SB-2000 (O&M)

MUKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

. . . .APPELLANTS

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB

. . . . RESPONDENT

CRM-25285-2025 in/and CRR-653-2001

GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

. . . .PETITIONERS Vs.

MUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

. . . . RESPONDENTS

Date of Decision: 09.07.2025

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr.Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate, and Ms. Navreet K. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant (in CRA-S-485-SB-2000).

Mr.Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Ms.Dheerja, Advocate, for the complainant (in CRA-S-485-SB-2000). for petitioner No.2 (in CRR-653-2001)

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Shinder Pal Kaur expired within 7 years of her marriage with Amrik Singh. FIR No.102 dated 10.12.1997 under Section 304-B IPC was registered in this regard at Police Station Sadar Mansa. Husband-Amrik Singh, parents-in-law Mukhdev Singh and Surjit Kaur; brother-in-law Gurpiar Singh and sister-in-law Paramjit Kaur of the deceased-Shinder Pal Kaur were tried by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. Vide judgment dated 05.05.2000, the sister-in-law and brother-in-law i.e. Paramjit Kaur and Gurpiar Singh, respectively were acquitted of the

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.07.09 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-S-485-SB-2000

2025:PHHC: 082117

CRR-653-2001

2025:PHHC: 082133

charge. Husband-Amrik Singh expired during trial. Parents-in-law Mukhdev Singh and Surjit Kaur, who are now appellants before this Court, were acquitted of the charge under Section 304-B IPC, but were convicted under Section 306/34 IPC. Vide separate order of even date, both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `5000/- each with default sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

Against the abovesaid conviction and sentence, this appeal was filed.

Today learned counsel for the appellants stated at the outset that appellants do not press the appeal against the judgment of conviction; and that appellants confine their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submitted that appellants would be satisfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.

Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that appellant No.1-Mukhdev Singh is now 87 years of age, whereas appellant No.2Surjit Kaur is 86 years of age. Not only the fact that both of the appellants are at the prime age, appellant No.1-Mukhdev Singh has already undergone total sentence of 1 year 3 months and 26 days and appellant No.2-Surjit Kaur has already undergone total sentence of 9 months and 1 day. These facts are evident even from their respective custody certificates; therefore, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them.

Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid factual position as well as the prayer made by counsel for the appellants.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.07.09 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 2 of 3

CRA-S-485-SB-2000 CRR-653-2001

2025:PHHC: 082117 2025:PHHC: 082133

already undergone by the appellants, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.

Having regard to the advanced stage of the appellants, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against conviction, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. 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 appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trail Court.

CRA-S-485-SB-2000 is disposed of.

So far as CRR-653-2001 is concerned, the same was moved

by the complainant of the case for enhancing the sentence. However, the application bearing CRM-25285-2025 has been moved so as to withdraw the petitions [CRR-653-2001]. s

In view of the request made in the application [CRM-25285-

2025] and reiterated by learned counsel for petitioner No.2-applicant, the

present revision [CRR-653-2001] is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

09.07.2025

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

Vivek

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.07.09 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Page 3 of 3