Umarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Umarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Custodial sentences of both petitioners reduced to the period already undergone; fines of Rs.1000/- (Section 382 IPC) and Rs.500/- (Indervir Singh, Section 25 Arms Act) together with default sentences maintained; interim applications disposed of; copy of order to be placed on record of CRR-2495-2010.

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentences imposed on the petitioners (rigorous imprisonment 2 years under Section 382 IPC, 1860 on both; additionally one year under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 on Indervir Singh) should be reduced, given that the convictions themselves are not challenged, on grounds of custody already undergone, deposit of fines, absence of other criminal record, lapse of over 25 years since the occurrence and youth (22/23 years) at the time of occurrence. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned judgments of conviction passed against the petitioners are confirmed (both petitioners' convictions under Section 382 IPC, 1860, and Indervir Singh's conviction under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959, stand).

Ratio / Principle

Sentences of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them — 5 months and 10 days (Umarjit Singh) and more than 1 year and 3 months (Indervir Singh) — having regard to custody undergone, deposit of the imposed fines, absence of any crime committed while on bail, and the pleas of unexplained injuries, lapse of over 25 years and young age at the occurrence.

Key takeaways

Sentences of fine, including default sentences, are maintained.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Ramesh Chander Dimri, J., oral) — 13.03.2026: Two criminal revision petitions (CRR-676-2010 O&M — Umarjit Singh; CRR-2495-2010 O&M — Indervir Singh) against State of Punjab, arising from FIR No.76 dated 17.05.2000 of Police Station Dhanaula, partly allowed. Convictions confirmed — both petitioners under Section 382 IPC, 1860, and Indervir Singh additionally under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 (trial judgment/order of sentence dated 01.02.2005; appeals dismissed by the Sessions Court at Barnala on 01.02.2010). Counsel did not challenge the convictions and sought leniency in sentence: custody undergone (Umarjit Singh 5 months 10 days; Indervir Singh over 1 year 3 months), fines deposited, no other criminal case/FIR, lapse of over 25 years, and age of 22/23 years at the occurrence. Medico-legal examination on 18.05.2000 had recorded 22 injuries on Indervir Singh and 17 on Umarjit Singh, deposed by DW1 Paramjit Singh to have been caused by police in civil dress and unexplained by the prosecution — a point the AAG could not satisfactorily answer. Custodial sentences reduced to the period already undergone; fines of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- with default sentences maintained.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(202) (1) CRR-676-2010 (O&M) Umarjit Si n gh ……Petitioner Versus State of P u njab ..…Respondent (2) CRR-2495-2010 (O&M) Indervir Si n gh ……Petitioner Versus State of P u njab ..…Respondent

Decided on: 13.03.2026

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Present:Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-676 - 2010. Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-249 5 -2010. Mr.Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punj a b.

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral) :

In consequence to an FIR N o .76 dated 17.05.2000 registere d at Police S tation Dhanaula against the pe t itioners, they were tried by th e concerned Judicial Magistrate. On co n clusion of trial, the petitione r Indervir Si n gh was convicted under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for b revity, “1860 Code”) and Sec t ion 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for brevi t y, “1959 Act”) whereas the petitioner Umarjit Singh was convicted u nder Section 382 of the said Code. Through a judgment o f conviction and order of sentence dated 0 1.02.2005, both were impose d

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

CRR-676 & 2495-2010 (O&M)

-2-

rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 382 of the said Code whereas the petitioner Indervir Singh was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 25 of the 1959 Act. Default sentences were also imposed on them.

Aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, they filed a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court at Barnala. However, it was dismissed on 01.02.2010. Aggrieved of the said conviction etc., the petitioners have filed the present petitions. Same were admitted by this Court and sentences imposed on them were ordered to be suspended. They are now stated to be on bail.

I have heard Shri C.L.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Umarjit Singh and Ms.Monika Jalota, Advocate for the petitioner Indervir Singh as well as Shri Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab, on merits of the Revision Petitions. With their assistance, I have perused photocopies of the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have made statements at Bar that they do not challenge the judgments of conviction passed against their clients but leniency may be shown to the petitioners in respect of imposition of sentences. Shri Verma states that his client has already undergone a period of 5 months and 10 days out of the sentence of 2 years whereas Ms.Jalota states that her client has already undergone more than 1 year and 3 months out of 2 years of imprisonment imposed on him. They also state that their respective clients have already deposited the imposed fine.

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

CRR-676 & 2495-2010 (O&M)

-3-

In support of their plea for reduction of sentence, they state that a perusal of the judgment dated 01.02.2005 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate shows that 22 injuries were detected on person of the petitioner Indervir Singh in his medico-legal examination conducted on 18.05.2000 whereas 17 injuries were detected on person of the petitioner Umarjit Singh in his medico-legal examination conducted on that date. They in fact argue that such injuries have been deposed by DW1 Paramjit Singh to have been caused by the police persons in civil dress. As per them, the said injuries were not explained by the prosecution. They also state that there is no other criminal case/FIR against the petitioners registered at any place. Lapse of a period of more than 25 years since the date of the occurrence is also pleaded to be a ground for reduction of sentence in addition to the fact that at the time of occurrence in question, the petitioners were young boys of 22/23 years of age.

On the other hand, Learned AAG, Punjab has opposed prayer for reduction of sentence of the petitioners. However, upon a query raised to him, he could not satisfactorily reply presence of the above-mentioned injuries upon persons of the petitioners when they were medico-legally examined on 18.05.2000. He however admits that the petitioners have already undergone the above-stated periods of custody after their conviction in the matter in question.

On such hearing and perusal, the impugned judgments of conviction passed against the petitioners are confirmed. However, for what has been argued on behalf of the petitioners in support of prayer for reduction of sentence and in the facts/circumstances of the present matter

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left

CRR-676 & 2495-2010 (O&M)

-4-

especially when the petitioner Umarvir Singh has undergone a period of 5 months and 10 days out of imprisonment of 2 years whereas the petitioner Indervir Singh has undergone more than 1 year and 3 months out of 2 years of imprisonment imposed on him coupled with the fact that they have already deposited the imposed fine and they are not stated to have committed any crime while being on bail, I deem it a fit case for reduction of sentence imposed on the petitioners. Accordingly, the sentences imposed on the petitioners are ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Sentence of fine, including default sentence, however, are maintained.

Both the petitions are partly allowed in the above-stated terms. All interim application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed on the record of CRR-2495-2010.

13.03.2026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) Sailesh JUDGE

Whetherspeaking/reasoned :	Yes
Whether Reportable :	No

SAILESH RANJAN 2026.03.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bottom left