Surjit Kaur v. State Of Hy.
320 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-841-SB-2005 Date of Decision: April 04, 2025 Surjit Kaur ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Tanvir Singh Grewal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Fresh power of a"orney has been filed on behalf of the appellant.
Appellant - Surjit Kaur along with co-accused was tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, in a case arising out of FIR No.162 dated 27.09.2001, under Sec1ons 232, 324, 326 and 307 IPC, registered at Police Sta1on Radaur. A6er trial, the appellant was convicted under Sec1on 307 IPC vide judgment dated 03.05.2005 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- with default sentence of 01 year 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 her prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi"ed that appellant would be sa1sfied, in case she is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her. 4.
Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2001; that appellant was almost 51 years at that 1me; that appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 16 days and is not involved in any other case and so, she deserves to be sentenced for the period already undergone by her.
5.
Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer.
Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 09:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CRA-S-841-SB-2005 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:046709 6.
The custody cer1ficate placed on record by the respondentState would reveal that appellant has already undergone actual custody sentence of 01 month and 16 days. It is revealed further that she has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has not been brought on record to suggest that a6er this convic1on, appellant has been involved in any other case. She was 51 years of age at the 1me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2001 i.e. 24 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 her 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 her. As far as the fine is concerned, it will remain same. Disposed of.
April 04, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.05 09:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order