Partly allowed

Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2026CRR/225/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Sections 325/323/34 IPC for fracturing his father's hand in a family property dispute was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (3 months 26 days) citing prolonged proceedings, clean record, non-heinous offence, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000 fine.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000 in PPWF, PGIMER Chandigarh within two months.

Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

205 CRR-225-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 07.07.2026

¶3

Dalip Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

¶5

Present:Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶6

¶7

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J. (Oral)

¶8

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgments and order of sentence dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Moga and judgment dated 03.01.2008 dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 325/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year..

¶9

The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is the father of the petitioner - Dalip Singh and the father-in-law of the co-accused, Melo @ Gurmel Kaur, wife of Dalip Singh. As per the prosecution’s case, the complainant has five sons who were living separately pursuant to a family partition. In the said partition, a specific portion of the house/plot was allotted to the complainant, while the courtyard to his share remained common with the portion occupied

¶10

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶11

CRR-225-2008 (O&M) ( 2 )

¶12

by the petitioner. A dispute subsequently arose between the complainant and the petitioner regarding the allocation of the petitioner's share in the property. It is alleged that on 17.09.2003, at about 6.00/6.30 p.m., the petitioner, Dalip Singh, armed with a gandasa, and the co-accused, Melo @ Gurmel Kaur, having stones in her hands, confronted with the complainant in connection with the aforesaid property dispute. During the altercation, the petitioner allegedly inflicted a blow with the reverse side of the gandasa upon the complainant. In an attempt to save himself, the complainant raised his left hand, as a result of which the blow landed on his left hand, causing a fracture. It is further alleged that the co-accused, Melo @ Gurmel Kaur, threw a stone at the complainant, which struck him on the chest. Consequently, FIR No. 88 dated 07.10.2003 was registered at Police Station Mehna under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

A trial was proceeded where the petitioner alongwith his wife were convicted vide judgment dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Moga and the petitioner had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 325 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 323/34 IPC.The Gurmail Kaur @ Melo was also ordered to be sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/under Section 325/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment of conviction, where the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence qua Gurmail Kaur @ Melo since her injury fell under Section 323 IPC being a simple in nature on the ground that

¶14

PANKAJ KAKKAR she used a stone lifted randomly without prior deliberation being a woman 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

CRR-225-2008 (O&M) ( 3 )

¶16

with no prior criminal conviction. Her custodial sentence was set aside and was ordered to be released on probation for six months on a bond of Rs.10,000/-.The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Dalip Singh against both the judgments, which have concurrent findings against him.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 months and 26 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, namely Melo @ Gurmel Kaur, who is the wife of the petitioner, was granted the benefit of probation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide judgment dated 03.01.2008, whereby her sentence as awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Moga was set aside and she was ordered to be released on probation on her furnishing a probation bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. It is, therefore, contended that a similar lenient view deserves to be adopted in the case of the present petitioner while considering the question of sentence.

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 06.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the

¶20

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶21

CRR-225-2008 (O&M) ( 4 )

¶22

petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶24

A bare perusal of the material available on record reveals that FIR No.88, dated 07.10.2003 under Sections 323/325/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mehna. Upon conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 17.07.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Moga. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide judgment dated 03.01.2008, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged both the aforesaid judgments by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition in the year 2008.

¶25

As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2003 and the present case has come up for hearing today i.e. 07.07.2026, where the petitioner has already faced a protracted criminal proceedings of more than 23 years.

¶26

While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the

¶27

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶28

CRR-225-2008 (O&M) ( 5 )

¶29

complainant, who is the biological father of the petitioner, has already expired and the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 06.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 03 months and 26 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶30

A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654 , wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

¶31

“23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.”

¶32

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶33

CRR-225-2008 (O&M) ( 6 )

¶34

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one.

¶35

In the present case as well, the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused a grievous injury to the complainant, who was none other than his father. The injury attributed to the petitioner resulted in a fracture of the complainant's left hand during an altercation arising out of a dispute regarding the share in the family property allotted to the petitioner by the complainant. It is also a matter of record that the complainant has since passed away during the pendency of the present revision petition.

¶36

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased complainant, being that of son and father, the fact that the occurrence emanated from a family property dispute, and that the offence cannot be said to be of a heinous nature, this Court is of the considered view that these mitigating circumstances deserve due weight while moulding the sentence. The incident arose out of an intra-family dispute and culminated in the registration of the present FIR. In

¶37

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶38

CRR-225-2008 (O&M) ( 7 )

¶39

such circumstances, and with a view to promoting peace and harmony within the family, the prayer made by the petitioner for reduction of the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, coupled with enhancement of the fine, merits favourable consideration.

¶40

Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the Courts below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in Poor Patient Welfare Fund (PPWF) at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh within a period of two months from today.

¶41

Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged.

¶42

It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence.

¶43

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.

¶44

07.07.2026 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶45

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.08 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Singla Vs State of Haryana

Dalip Kumar Vs Anil Kumar Dahiya, the Engineer-in-Chief and Others

Bhola Ram Vs State of Haryana through Its Commissioner

Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana

Anwar Vs State of Haryana