Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana

The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 15/20.05.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and judgment dated 19.02.2008 dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 452/323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

¶16

The facts, in brief, are that the case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by one Suman that on the intervening night of 04/05.06.2000 at around 10.30 PM to 11.00 PM she was sleeping alone in the courtyard of her house. The door of her house was suddenly open. She woke up and saw that the petitioner was standing

¶17

in the chok of her house. She tried to capture the petitioner, but he twisted her fingers of left hand and also made a threat to kill her. She

¶18

SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

-1-

¶20

211 CRR No.399 of 2008 (O&M)

¶21

raised a noise and on hearing the noise one Hari Om and Daya Ram reached at the spot but the petitioner ran away. Consequently, FIR No.82 dated 05.06.2000 was registered at Police Station Jatusana under Sections 451/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 14 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.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 05.03.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the 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.

¶24

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

¶25

The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC was thereafter recorded, wherein the petitioner pleaded innocence and

¶26

SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶27

-2-

¶28

211 CRR No.399 of 2008 (O&M)

¶29

asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence.

¶30

As regards the allegations in the present case, the prosecution case is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the complainant and twisted her left index finger. However, the medical evidence on record does not fully corroborate the said allegations. PW-6, Dr. Chander Shekhar, who medically examined the complainant on 05.06.2000, proved the Medico-Legal Report (Ex. PW6/A) and deposed that there was only slight diffuse swelling over the metacarpophalangeal (MP) joint of the left index finger. He further stated that no deformity or no visible injury was found and that the movement of the index finger was free. The alleged occurrence took place during the night and that the prosecution has failed to produce any trustworthy independent evidence to substantiate its case. It has also been argued that Hari Om, an independent witness to the alleged occurrence, was not examined by the prosecution.

¶31

It is not in dispute that, as per the Medico-Legal Report (Ex. PW6/A), the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. In fact, PW-6 specifically opined that no visible injury was present and that the movement of the complainant's index finger was free, thereby indicating the absence of any serious physical injury.

¶32

Further, as per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2000, trial proceeded, this petition was filed in the year 2008 and the petitioner, who is 70 years old has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 25 years.

¶33

SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶34

-3-

¶35

211 CRR No.399 of 2008 (O&M)

¶36

While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence and without opining upon the merits of the case and as per the medical report, where no serious injury was visible, 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 offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 05.03.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 14 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶37

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:

¶38

“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,

¶39

SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶40

-4-

¶41

211 CRR No.399 of 2008 (O&M)

¶42

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.”

¶43

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance for modifying the 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.

¶44

In the present case also, the allegations against the petitioner are that he entered the house of complainant and twisted the left hand index finger of complainant and as per the medical opinion, no serious injury was visible.

¶45

SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶46

-5-

¶47

211 CRR No.399 of 2008 (O&M)

¶48

Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today.

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

(DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 09.07.2026 JUDGE ‘Sandeep’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable: Yes No

¶53

SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶54

-6-

Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mehar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Singla Vs State of Haryana

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

Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana and Another

Anwar Vs State of Haryana

Lachhman Singh Vs State of Punjab