Harbans Lal v. State Of Hy.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 HARBANS LAL .....Appellant Vs STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Appellant was convicted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 01.06.2004 under Sec0on 354 IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.713 dated 27.06.2003, registered at Police Sta0on NIT, Faridabad under Sec0on 376 read with Sec0on 511 IPC. 2.
The vic0m was a minor girl aged two and a half year, who was a7empted to be raped upon by the appellant, but ul0mately trial Court found that case was covered under Sec0on 354 IPC. Vide order dated 01.06.2004, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay a fine of ₹with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment for commi9ng the offence under sec0on 354 IPC. 3.
Against the aforesaid convic0on and the order to sentence, the present appeal has been filed.
4.
Today, statement is made by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is 82 years of age and is suffering from various ailments. He has also placed on record various medical documents to support this conten0on. Learned counsel has further made a statement so as to withdraw the appeal against the convic0on, but with a further prayer to modify the impugned order of sentence Page 1 of 3 Pages
and by direc0ng the appellant to undergo sentence for the period already undergone by him.
5.
Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer by poin0ng out towards the nature of crime, but does not dispute the factual posi0on. 6.
The custody cer0ficate placed on record would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody period of 03 months and 05 days. At the 0me of recording of the FIR in 2003, he was aged 61 years, which means that as of now, he is 83 years of age.Custody cer0ficate further reveals that appellant is not involved in any other criminal case.
7.
Apart from above, counsel for the appellant has placed on record various medical reports revealing that appellant is suffering from diabetes and had brain stroke. He had to be admi7ed in Hospital as he had the complaints of sudden onset of le= sided weakness or numbness. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is almost half paralysis state and stays bed ridden. Even learned State counsel along with the verifica0on report submi7ed by SHO Police Sta0on NIT, Faridabad has placed on record the report submi7ed by Municipal Councilor, as per which due to his advanced age, the appellant always remains ill.
8.
Although considering the nature of offence commi7ed by the appellant, he does not deserve any leniency, but at the same 0me, the Court cannot ignore the advanced age of the appellant, who is now 83 years of age, and his extremely bad health. It is also no0ced that he is not involved in any other criminal case. His sentence was earlier suspended by this Court in July, 2004 and thus, he is now outside the Jail for the last more than 21 years. 9.
Having no0ced all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is felt that it will not be in interest of jus0ce to send the appellant behind the bars to carry out the remaining period of sentence.
10.
As such, considering statement made by learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal against convic0on is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant to modify the Page 2 of 3 Pages
order of sentence is accepted, by sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period already undergone by him. As far as the fine is concerned it will remain the same.
Disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) 25.03.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes Whether reportable :
No Page 3 of 3 Pages