Rajpal & Anr. vs State Of Haryana

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

103 CRA-S-1904-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 13.11.2026

Rajpal & Anr.
..... Appellants

VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate for the complainant.

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.


The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the
judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2004 and order of sentence dated
10.09.2004, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge
Gurgaon, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.63 dated 15.03.2002, was lodged at the instance of ‘Rohtash’,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The abovesaid FIR was
lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
323/325/307/34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bilaspur. In the wake
of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as
an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellants, along with ‘Shamsher
Singh’ and ‘Naresh Kumar’, were sent to face trial before the learned trial
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
Court.
3. The appellants along with the above-named co-accused
participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue of judgment dated
08.09.2004, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’, the
abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellants and acquittal of
co-accused. Thus, vide order dated 10.09.2004, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentence was awarded to the appellants:-


Sentence


307 read with 34
Offence under
Section

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default thereof to
undergo further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of six
months.

of IPC
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘Rohtash S/o Shiv Lal’,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, who had reported to the
police that they were three brothers having a joint tubewell with ‘Banwari
Lal’. According to above-named complainant, on 12.03.2002 at about 04:00
pm, ‘Kishan’ (the younger brother of the complainant), ‘Naresh Kumar and
‘Shamsher Singh’ (both sons of ‘Banwari Lal’), had gone to the tubewell to
pick-up the electric motor, which had developed some defect. As per
complainant, there an altercation had taken place between them, and
therefore, the family of ‘Banwari Lal’ developed a grudge against the family
of complainant.
5. The complainant further stated that on 12.03.2002 itself at
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
about 07:30 pm, ‘Jai Pal’ and ‘Rajpal’ (both sons of ‘Banwari Lal’) armed
with a wooden stick and hockey, visited the shop of complainant and in
order to lodge protest about the previous enmity, started abusing ‘Chattar
Singh’ (the elder brother of the complainant). The complainant further
alleged that both the above-named persons launched an assault upon
‘Chattar Singh’ with the help of their respective weapons and when he (the
complainant) tried to rescue his brother, he, too, came under assault. It was
claimed by the above-named complainant that in the abovementioned
injuries, he as well as his brother ‘Chattar Singh’ suffered multiple injuries
on various parts of their bodies.
6. It was a case of the prosecution that on the basis of
abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough
site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses
under Section 161 CrPC, and completed other formalities of investigation.
Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed in the Court.
7. Heard.
8. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial
Court were perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the
appellants, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the
unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was
believed by the learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the appellants ,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
the learned trial Court failed to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case,
and merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the finding of
conviction of appellants, for the commission of offence under Section
307/34 of IPC, was recorded.
9. It has been further contended on behalf of appellants that the
learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all
reasonable doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the
evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an
inference that all the essential ingredients, meant for the commission of
offence, for which the appellants were convicted, had been proved. In view
of above, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the case
against the appellants was not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the
learned trial Court returned the finding of conviction.
10. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellants has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellants are
not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned
trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has categorically
contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellants are
challenging the order on the point of quantum of sentence only.
11. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2002.
According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are facing the
agony of litigation for the last more than 24 years and have, in fact, already
suffered more punishment than they deserved. According to learned counsel
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
for the appellants, in the last more than 23 years, the appellants have not
been prosecuted for any other offence.
12. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has
also argued that in the present case, both the appellants ‘Rajpal’ and ‘Jaipal’
have already undergone imprisonment for a period of nine-and-a-half month
each. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in view of above-
discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been
prescribed for the offence, for which the appellants have been convicted, the
sentence already undergone by the appellants may be treated to be sufficient.
The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that the
complainant has preferred the revision petition for payment of compensation
of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heir of injured/victim ‘Chattar Singh’, and that
the abovesaid revision petition has already been allowed, in view of consent,
given by the appellants, for payment of compensation.
13. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent/State has
argued that the appellants were found guilty for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC. According to learned counsel for
the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of seven years, is already on lower side, and that
the appellants are not entitled to a sentence, awarded to them. As per learned
counsel for the respondent/State, the instant appeal has no merits and
deserves dismissal.
14. The learned counsel for the complainant has conceded this fact
that the revision petition, preferred by the complainant for payment of
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of ‘Chattar Singh’, has been
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
allowed, and that the learned counsel for the appellants has agreed to pay the
abovesaid compensation.
15. The record has been perused carefully.
16. Although it is categorical stand of the appellants that they are
not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial
Court, yet, with a purpose to evaluate evidence, the record has been perused
carefully. A perusal of trial Court record shows that the evidence adduced by
the prosecution was thoroughly consistent, and good enough to bring home
guilt of the appellants, for which they were charge-sheeted. Thus, it is
hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of
appellants, for the offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC. Accordingly, the
abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of
conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
17. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in
view of the fact that both the appellants ‘Rajpal’ and ‘Jaipal’ have already
undergone imprisonment for a period of nine-and-a-half month each, against
the awarded sentence of seven years, it is hereby held that the appellants are
entitled to a lenient view.
18. In the light of above observations, if factual matrix of the
present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which are
required to be taken into consideration: -
(a) that the incident in question had taken place about 24 years
ago;
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial
for the last more than 24 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of seven years, both the
appellants ‘Rajpal’ and ‘Jaipal’ have already undergone
imprisonment for a period of nine-and-a-half month each;
(d) that in view of consent, given by learned counsel for the
appellants in the connected revision petition, the demand for
payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, to the legal heirs
of one of the injured/victim has been accepted;
(e) that in the last more than 23 years, the appellants have not
been prosecuted for any other offence; and
(f) that now the appellants ‘Rajpal’ and ‘Jaipal’ are more than
47 and 60-year-old, respectively.

19. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded
to the appellants is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it
is hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for
interference and indulgence in the impugned order, i.e. the order on the point
of quantum of sentence, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in
this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned
jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellants needs to be rationalized
and reduced.
20. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is
hereby held that in the present case, the appellants are entitled to a lenient
view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is
adequate to meet the ends of justice.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
21. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is
hereby partly allowed . The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on
the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to
the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
13.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.14 13:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document