Balender v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**** I.
CRA-S-678-SB-2004 (O&M) SHAM NARAIN . . . . APPELLANT VS.
STATE OF HARYANA . . . . RESPONDENT **** II.
CRA-S-1111-SB-2004 (O&M) CHANDER PARTAP MISHRA . . . . APPELLANT VS.
STATE OF HARYANA . . . . RESPONDENT **** III.
CRA-S-1634-SB-2004 (O&M) BALENDER . . . . APPELLANT VS.
STATE OF HARYANA . . . . RESPONDENT **** IV.
CRA-S-1485-SB-2004 (O&M) RAM LAL . . . . APPELLANT VS.
STATE OF HARYANA . . . . RESPONDENT **** Date of Decision: - 12.05.2025 ****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant (CRA-S-678-SB-2004).
Mr.Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant (CRA-S-1111-SB-2004).
Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant (CRA-S-1634-SB-2004).
Ms.Monika Tanwar, Advocate, for the appellant (CRA-S-1485-SB-2004).
Mr.R.K.S. Brar, Advocate, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) In a case arising out of FIR No.65 dated 22.02.2002 under Sections 148, 332, 333, 353, 186 read with Section 149 IPC registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, four accused (appellants herein) faced trail. Each of the accused (appellants herein) were convicted under Sections 148, 332, 333, 353, 186 read with Section 149 IPC by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment dated 17.03.2004 and sentenced vide order dated 19.03.2004 as under: - Offence under Section Period of imprisonment Fine (in ₹) Default sentence Section 333 IPC Four years RI 500/- 15 days RI Section 332 IPC Two Years RI 500/- 15 days RI Section 148 IPC One year RI 200/- 7 days RI Section 353 IPC One year RI 100/- 7 days RI Section 186 IPC Three months RI 200/- 7 days RI 2.
Against the abovesaid conviction and sentence, accused (appellants herein) filed the aforesaid separate appeals. 3.
Today learned counsel for the appellants stated at the outset that appellants do not press the appeal against the judgment of conviction; and that appellants confine their prayer only against order of sentence. It is submitted that appellants would be satisfied, in case they are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.
4.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2002; that appellants have already undergone actual sentence as under: - ACCUSED ACTUAL SENTENCE UNDERGONE Sham Narain 1 year 28 days Chander Partap Mishra 09 months 13 days Balender 1 year 15 days Ram Pal 09 months 16 days Appellants are not involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by them. 5.
Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.
6.
The separate custody certificates placed on record by the respondent-State would reveal that appellants, Sham Narain, Chander Partap Mishra, Balender and Ram Pal have already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 year and 28 days, 09 months and 13 days, 1 year and 15 days; and 09 months and 16 days respectively. It is revealed further that they have no criminal antecedents. The offence had taken place way back in 2002 i.e. 23 years back.
7.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants, instead of sending them behind bars in the company of hardened criminals.
8.
Consequently, the aforesaid four appeals are partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against conviction, the common order of sentence as passed by the trial Court is modified and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. As far as fine is concerned, it will remain same. 9.
However, it is made clear that amount of fine, if not paid earlier, shall be deposited before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the
appellants will have to carry out the complete sentence as imposed by the trail Court.
Disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
12.05.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes Whether reportable?
No