Partly allowed¶55

Gobind Ram v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Apr 2026CRR/3248/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gobind Ram v. State of Haryana - revision petition, High Court Chandigarh, decided 10.04.2026. Conviction under Sections 323/325 IPC (2000 DDR assault on Kamlesh Rani and Somwati; fracture to Somwati) upheld on merits despite counsel conceding conviction; sentence reduced to period already undergone for aged (about 70) first-offender sole bread-earner with over 25 years of litigation and about one month five days custody; fine of Rs.1500 unchanged; amicus curiae fee Rs.20,000; revision partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition partly allowed: judgments of conviction upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.1500/- left unchanged. ¶55

Gobind Ram Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition partly allowed: judgments of conviction upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.1500/- left unchanged.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, upheld by the Sessions Court, warranted interference before this Court - examined on merits even though counsel sought only leniency in sentence. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC upheld: both injured witnesses (PW-1 Kamlesh and PW-2 Somwati, the latter the petitioner's younger sister with no reason to depose against him) supported the prosecution; PW-3 Dr. Vinay Chaudhary proved the injuries (blunt-weapon fracture to Somwati per PW-4); the investigating officer's findings corroborated the allegations; no irregularity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (about one month and five days) considering that the petitioner faced trial/appeal for over 25 years, is the sole bread-earner and a first offender, was about 54 at conviction and over 70 now, and never misused bail since suspension on 08.01.2010; the amount of fine remains unchanged.

¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (High Court, Chandigarh; decided 10.04.2026): Gobind Ram, convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC for the assault of 03.12.2000 on Kamlesh Rani and Somwati (Somwati sustaining a fracture of the proximal phalanx of the left thumb), whose appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 09.12.2009, did not press the challenge to conviction and sought only leniency in sentence. The Court nonetheless reviewed the merits: the injured witnesses PW-1 Kamlesh and PW-2 Somwati - the latter the petitioner's younger sister, with no reason to depose against him - fully supported the prosecution; PW-3 Dr. Vinay Chaudhary proved the fracture, and PW-4 Dr. Ashwani Bhatnager deposed the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon; the investigation findings corroborated the allegations. Convictions upheld. On sentence: the petitioner, a first offender and sole bread-earner, about 70 years of age, facing trial/appeal since 13.12.2000 (over 25 years), having actually undergone about one month and five days, with sentence suspended since 08.01.2010 without misuse of bail - sentence reduced to the period already undergone; the fine of Rs.1500/- was retained. Revision petition partly allowed. Fee of the Amicus Curiae (Mr. K.P.S Virk) assessed at Rs.20,000/-, payable by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

��

��

�� 

��

�� !"!�#$��%��%��&

Gobind Ram

…Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent

¶10

��'�(�$ ��#)*+��,'%��-"�! ��%.%./�0/�1��

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.P.S Virk, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Ms. Shakti Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

¶15

¶16

�%.%./�0/�1��%

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2008 and order of sentence dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and was sentenced as under:5

¶18

Under Section 323 of IPC	S.I for a period of three months
Under Section 325 of IPC	S.I for a period of three months and to
	pay a fine of Rs.1500/5. In default of
	payment of fine, he shall undergo
	further S.I for two months.

¶19

HITESH 2026.04.20 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶20

��

¶21

��

¶22

The Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3.12.2000 at 10.40 Α.Μ. a DDR was registered at the behest of one Smt. Kamlesh Rani, who stated that at about 9.30 A.M. on 3.12.2000, when she alongwith her sister5in5 law Somwati went to �� plot to take cow dung then her in sister5in5law Mishra Devi got suspicious that they were going to untether their cattle. The said Mishra Devi reported the matter to the Gobind Ram brother5in5law of the complainant, who reached the spot with his son Manish Kumar and started beating them. It is further stated that she was hit by the �� on right side of her head, left arm, on her teeth and her ear ring fell on the spot. Further, she stated that both of them hit by her sister5in5law on the left side of her head, on her forehead, on her left hand. Thereafter, they went away from the spot. The sister5in5law of the complainant was got medically examined from Civil Hospital and X5ray report was obtained in which fracture has been found, on which case was registered against the accused persons. Investigation was conducted. On 15.12.2000, accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court to face trial.

¶23

After perusing the challan and accompanying documents, the Trial Court found that a prima facie case under Sections 323 and 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC was made out against the petitioner and he was charge5sheeted accordingly. However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried by the Trial Court.

¶24

In order to prove the charge against the petitioner, the prosecution examined 05 witnesses. PW51 Kamlesh, PW52 Somwati, PW53 Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, PW54 Ashwani Bhatnagar and PW55 Ram Kumar, Inspector (retired).

¶25

HITESH 2026.04.20 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶26

��

¶27

��

¶28

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he pleaded that he had been falsely involved in the present case. No defence evidence was led by the petitioner in his defence.

¶29

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction and some leniency may be shown by this Court, while awarding the sentence to him. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction, still this Court has considered the case on merits.

¶30

In the present case, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW51 Kamlesh, who had fully supported the case of the prosecution. Her testimony has been duly corroborated by the statement of PW52 Somwati. She also explained the injuries suffered by her as well as her sister5in5law in the occurrence. She further stated that Gobind Ram, appellant was her elder brother and Mishri Devi his wife. The prosecution further examined PW53 Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, who had radiologically examined Somwati wife of Roshan Lal on 04.12.2000 and found fracture of proximal Phalnax of left thumb and proved his report Ex.PW52/A and X.Ray report Ex.PW52/2 to Ex.PW52/6. He further deposed that on the same day he had radiologically examined Kamlesh wife of Parmal and found no injury and proved his report Ex.PW52/7.

¶31

The prosecution further examined Dr. Ashwani Bhatnagar as PW54, who medico5legally examined Somwati wife of Roshan Lal on

¶32

HITESH 2026.04.20 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶33

��

¶34

��

¶35

03.12.2000 and found the following injuries:5

��

!��"��"��#�� $%��

&��'��

"��#�!�� (��

)��)�#�)���#��� $%�� +�#��+�� $%��,�� -��)#!�� $��,��

¶41

*��+#�+��.�� $�� ,��

¶42

He further examined Kamlesh wife of Parmal and found the following injuries on his person:5

¶43

/��0��1�� 2��$%��3��4�� !�� (��5��

¶44

HITESH 2026.04.20 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶45

��

¶46

�2�

¶47

&��#!�� 6��#��%�� $��,�� "��-�#�!�� #�� $%��,��

¶48

He deposed that all injuries were caused by blunt weapon and within six hours of duration. Injury No.2 was simple in nature, while, rest of the injuries were kept under observation. He also proved the MLRs of Kamlesh and Somwati. 9. The prosecution further examined Ram Kumar, Inspector (retired) as PW55, who had conducted the investigation in the present case and presented the challan.

¶49

From the above referred prosecution evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution had examined both the injured namely PW51 Kamlesh and PW52 Somwati. Even, Somwati is younger sister of the petitioner and had no reason to depose against him. Even, the injuries suffered by them have been proved on record by PW53 Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, who categorically stated that the injuries were caused to Somwati by a blunt weapon. Still further, even the allegations levelled against the petitioner were also found to be correct by PW55 Ram Kumar, Inspector (retired), who had conducted the investigation in the present case. There was sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner had committed the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and he was rightly convicted by both the Courts. Even otherwise, there was no irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts.

¶50

Now, adverting to the order of sentence in the present case, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is facing the agony of

¶51

HITESH 2026.04.20 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶52

��

¶53

�&�

¶54

trial/appeal since 13.12.2000 i.e. for the last more than 25 years. Even he is the sole bread earner of the family and is the first offender. Still further, the sentence imposed on the petitioner was ordered to be suspended by this Court on 08.01.2010 and has never misused the concession of bail. Even as per the Custody Certificate, he has already undergone more than 01 month and 05 days of actual custody. Moreover, at the time of his conviction, he was aged about 54 years and at present, he is aged more than 70 years. Consequently, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in the present case. However, the amount of fine will remain the same.

¶55

With the above modifications, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of convictions are upheld, whereas, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the amount of fine will remain the same.

¶56

I record my appreciation for Mr. K.P.S Virk Amicus Curiae, who has rendered able assistance to the Court and fee of Amicus Curiae is assessed Rs.20,000/5, which shall be paid by the Secretary High Court Legal Services Comittee, as per rules and practices.

¶57

�3�%.%.��4��5��6 10.04.2026 �� �� Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶58

HITESH 2026.04.20 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Gobind Ram v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobind Ram v. State of Haryana

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

Case details

Similar cases

Varinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kanta Vs State of Haryana and Others

Om Vir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Salwinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sukhdev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another