Tahir @ Tahir Hussain vs The St Of Hry
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
109 CRA-S-1136-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.11.2026
Bhupinder Singh
..... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
109-II CRA-S-1715-SB-2005 (O&M)
Rattan Singh
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
109-III CRA-S-1570-SB-2005 (O&M)
Isab
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
109-IV CRA-S-2195-SB-2005 (O&M)
Tahir @Tahir Hussain
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1136-SB-2005.
Mr. Rahul Vats, and Mr. Vishal Taneja, Advocates
for the appellant in CRA-S-1715-SB-2005.
Mr. Satish Chaudhary, for the appellant(s)
in CRA-S-1570-SB-2005 & CRA-S-2195-SB-2005.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana
*
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.
All the appeals, detailed hereinbefore, have been filed by the
appellants against the same judgment of conviction, i.e. the judgment dated
30.05.2005, and the common order of sentence dated 31.05.2005, passed by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad, hereinafter being
referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.427 dated 28.10.2002, was lodged at the instance of ‘ Ram Avtar
Sharma’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The abovesaid
FIR was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
341, 364, 395, 397, 412, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Hodal. In
the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the
police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellants were
sent to face trial before the Court.
3. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 30.05.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellants. Thus, vide order dated 31.05.2005, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentences were awarded to the appellants:-
Offence under
Sentence
341 of IPC
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month
each.
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten 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 each.
364 of IPC
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3
395 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten 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 each.
412 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight 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 each.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being on the basis of a complaint, filed by ‘Ram Avtar
Sharma, Manager, XPS Cargo Service Masani’, the complainant herein. It
was stated by the above-named complainant, in the complaint, that on
23.10.2002, ‘Ram Kumar’ (owner of the truck bearing registration
No.HR26-A-7922) telephonically informed him that ‘Kartar Singh’ (driver
of the aforesaid truck) had told him that on 19.10.2002, at about 10:00 pm,
when he was driving the truck on the road leading from Nuh to Hodal, near
Village Nangal Jat and Village Sodh, some persons travelling in a TATA-407
vehicle had intercepted the abovesaid truck. According to complainant, it
was further told that thereafter ‘Kartar Singh’ and the conductor
accompanying him, were blindfolded and forcibly taken in a four-wheeler to
an unknown place, where they were confined in a room.
5. The complainant further alleged that ‘Kartar Singh’ had further
informed him that on 22.10.2002 at about 02:30 am, two persons took them
through the fields and abandoned them on a roadside after removing their
blindfolds and threatening them not to look back. According to complainant,
‘Kartar Singh’ further told that subsequently they came to know that the
place, where they had been abandoned was a spot at a distance of 7 km from
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4
Kosi on the road leading from Kosi to Nandgaon.
6. It was a case of the prosecution that on the basis of
abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the
investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of
investigation, ‘Rattan Singh’ (the appellant herein) was arrested on
02.11.2002 and pursuant to his disclosure statement, seven bundles of stolen
articles were recovered at his instance. As per prosecution, thereafter on
03.11.2002, ‘Bhupinder’ (the appellant herein) was arrested and 279 packets
of cells were recovered at his instance.
7. The prosecution further alleged that thereafter, on 12.11.2002 a
raid was conducted at the house of ‘Ishab’ (the appellant herein), who was
found absconding and during the raid, five cartons containing wooden racks
and ten packets of Coca-Cola chemicals were recovered. According to
prosecution, ‘Ishab’ was subsequently arrested on 12.06.2003 and ‘Tahir’
(the appellant herein) was on 07.04.2003. As per prosecution, nine packets
containing spare parts of Yamaha motorcycles were recovered at his
instance. It was further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of
further 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.
8. Heard.
9. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5
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 ,
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 Sections
341/364/395/412 of IPC, was recorded.
10. 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 have contended that the case
against the appellants was not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the
learned trial Court returned the finding of conviction.
11. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellants have 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 have categorically
contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeals, the appellants are
challenging the order on the point of quantum of sentence only.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6
12. 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.
13. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants have
also argued that in the present case, the appellant ‘Bhupinder Singh’ has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, nine months &
twelve days, the appellant ‘Rattan Singh’ for four years & eighteen days, the
appellant ‘Isab’ for three years, five months & twenty one days and the
appellant ‘Tahir’ for three years, eight months & twenty six days. 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.
14. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent/State has
argued that the appellants were found guilty of the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 341/364/395/412 of IPC. According to learned
counsel for the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of ten 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 appeals have no merits and
deserve dismissal.
15. The record has been perused carefully.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7
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 341/364/395/412 of IPC.
Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the
judgment of conviction instant appeals are hereby dismissed.
17. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in
view of the fact that the appellant ‘Bhupinder Singh’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of two years, nine months & twelve days, the
appellant ‘Rattan Singh’ for four years & eighteen days, the appellant ‘Isab’
for three years, five months & twenty one days and the appellant ‘Tahir’ for
three years, eight months & twenty six days, against the awarded sentence of
ten 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;
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial
for the last more than 24 years;
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8
(c) that at the time of commission of offence, the appellants had
no criminal history;
(d) that against the awarded sentence of ten years, the appellant
‘Bhupinder Singh’ has already undergone imprisonment for
a period of two years, nine months & twelve days, the
appellant ‘Rattan Singh’ for four years & eighteen days, the
appellant ‘Isab’ for three years, five months & twenty one
days and the appellant ‘Tahir’ for three years, eight months
& twenty six days;
(e) that minimum sentence for the offence committed by the
appellants has not been prescribed;
(f) that in the last more than 20 years, the appellants have not
been prosecuted for any criminal activity; and
(g) that now the age of the appellants ‘Bhupinder Singh’,
‘Rattan Singh’, ‘Isab’, ‘Tahir’ is more than 51, 83, 51 and
53-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
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
9
21. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeals are
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.
23. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
04.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document