Birbal vs State Of Haryana

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119 CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11 .2026
Birbal
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2005 and order of sentence dated
23.08.2005, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jind, hereinafter
being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e.
FIR No.21 dated 18.01.2001, was lodged at the instance of ‘Hawa Singh ’.
The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence punishable
323, 506 and 34 of ,
under Sections Indian Penal Code hereinafter being

referred to as ‘IPC’ only, Police Station Sadar Narwana. In the wake of
abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an
outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial before
the learned trial Court.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 2
3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue
of judgment dated 19.08.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned
judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellant.
Thus, vide order dated 23.08.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following sentence was
awarded to the appellant:-
Offence under
Sentence
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default thereof to further
undergo further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of
six months.
307 IPC
4. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR
of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Hawa Singh’, hereinafter being
referred to as ‘complainant’ only. As per complainant, on 17.01.2001 he was
transporting bags of fertilizer and drum of diesel belonging to ‘Birbal’, the
appellant herein, and ‘Suraj Mal’ from ‘Narwana Mandi’ to their village.
According to complainant at about 07:00 P.M. when he was near the house of
‘Maya’, the appellant demanded to unload the bags of fertilizer belonging to
him, but he (the complainant) explained that bags of ‘Suraj Mal’ were stacked
on the top and therefore, he would first unload the bags of ‘Suraj Mal’ and
then of the appellant. It was further stated by the complainant that on the
above-mentioned issue ‘Birbal’ started abusing him in foul language and then
picked up a wooden peg and launched an assault upon him. According to
complainant the appellant was joined by ‘Ram Kumar’ and ‘Ram Chander’,
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 3
who were armed with wooden sticks and they all inflicted various injuries on
his person with the help of their respective weapons.
5. 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.
Initially the FIR was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under
Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC, however during the course of investigation
Sections 325 and 307 IPC were added.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended on behalf of appellant 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
appellant, 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 appellant,
the learned trial Court failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case,
and that merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the finding of
conviction of appellant for the commission of offence under Section 307 of
IPC was recorded.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 4
8. It has been further contended on behalf of appellant 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 appellant, 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
appellant was convicted, had been proved. In view of above, the learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that the case against the appellant was
not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court returned
the finding of conviction.
9. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not
inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial
Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has categorically contended that
at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order
on the point of quantum of sentence only.
10. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2001. According to
learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of
litigation for the last more than 25 years and has, in fact, already suffered
more punishment than he deserved. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, before or after the offence, related to present case, the appellant has
not been prosecuted for any other offence.
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 5
11. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also
argued that in the present case, the appellant has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of two years, seven months and twenty two days.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed
factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the
offence, for which the appellant has been convicted, the sentence already
undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/State has argued
that the appellant was found guilty of the commission of offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC. According to learned counsel for the
respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for
a period of seven years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not
entitled to a sentence, awarded to him. As per learned counsel for the
respondent/State, the instant appeal has no merits and deserves dismissal.
13. The record has been perused carefully.
14. Although it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is 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 appellant, for which he was 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 appellant, for the offence
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 6
under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby
affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby
dismissed.
15. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view
of the fact that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period
of two years, seven months and twenty two days, against the awarded
sentence of seven years, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a
lenient view.
16. 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 25 years
ago;
(b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for the
last more than 25 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of seven years, the appellant
has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years,
seven months and twenty two days;
(d) that it was the first offence committed by the appellant;
(e) that in the last more than 25 years, the appellant has not been
prosecuted for any other offence;
(f) that minimum sentence for the offence has not been
prescribed; and
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CRA-S-1706-SB-2005 (O&M) 7
(g) that now the age of the appellant Birbal is more than 49 years
old.
17. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to
the appellant 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 appellant needs to be rationalized and reduced.
18. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is
hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient view,
and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is adequate to
meet the ends of justice.
19. 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
appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of,
accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
11.11.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.11.12 13:35
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document