Vijay Kumar v. State Of Pb.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** CRA-S-1291-SB-2004 Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 Vijay Kumar .....Appellant Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Appellant was tried by Ld. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala in a case arising out of FIR No.151 dated 29.09.2003 under Sec1ons 354/342 of IPC registered at Police Sta1on Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. A5er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 354 of IPC vide judgment dated 09.06.2004 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ₹,000/- with default sentence of 01 months rigorous imprisonment in case of nonpayment of fine and under Sec1on 342 of IPC, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one years and to pay a fine of ₹,000/- with default sentence of 01 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.
2.
Against the abovesaid convic1on and sentence, this appeal was filed.
3.
Today learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that appellant does not press the appeal against the judgment of convic1on; and that appellant confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi:ed that appellant would be sa1sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. PRIYANKA 2025.03.25 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-S-1291-SB-2004 -24.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2003; that appellant was young person of 22 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 08 months and 10 days and is not involved in any other case and so, he deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.
5.
Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.
6.
The custody cer1ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 08 months and 10 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a5er this convic1on, appellant has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 22 years of age at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2003 i.e. 21 years back.
7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus1ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.
8.
Consequently, the present appeal is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic1on, the order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Disposed of.
March 25, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) pry JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA 2025.03.25 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document