Brijpal & Ors. vs State Of Hry.

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

107 CRA-S-1334-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 05.11.2026

Brijpal & Ors.

..... Appellants

VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Sunit Panwar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dhruv Singh, Advocate for the appellants No.1 & 2.

Appeal qua appellant No.3 already stands abated
vide order dated 30.09.2026.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana.

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.


The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction dated 18.07.2005 and order of sentence dated
20.07.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Court) Bhiwani, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.412 dated 15.10.1998, was lodged at the instance of ‘Manoj’,
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 Sadar, District
Bhiwani. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken
up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
appellants were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court.
3. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 18.07.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellants. Thus, vide order dated 20.07.2005, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentences were awarded to the appellants:-


Sentence


Offence under
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default thereof to
undergo further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of
three months.

325/34 of IPC

307/34 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default thereof to
undergo further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of
two months.
323/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment 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 at the instance of ‘Manoj’, the complainant herein.
It was stated by the abovesaid complainant that on 27.09.1998, in the
Ramlila organized in Village Kharak Kalan, an altercation had taken place
between him and ‘Yogender’, on one side, and Sanjay (the appellant No.2),
on the other hand. According to complainant, thereafter on 28.09.1998, at
about 10:00 am, when he (the complainant) along with ‘Yogender’, was
present at the bus stand of their Village, ‘Sanjay’ (the appellant No.2)
approach them from opposite direction and caught hold of the complainant,
whereupon ‘Billu’ (the appellant No.1), armed with a stick ( lathi ), inflicted a
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
blow on his head, whereas ‘Nanhe’ (the appellant No.3) inflicted a stick
( lathi ) blow on his back.
5. The complainant further alleged that thereafter ‘Sanjay’ (the
appellant No.2) inflicted a lathi blow on the right side of the thigh of
complainant, whereas another assailant inflicted a lathi blow on his elbow.
According to complainant, in the meanwhile ‘Babu Lal’ came on the spot to
rescue them, but ‘Nanhe’ (the appellant No.3) inflicted iron-rod blows on his
head, fingers and thigh. As per complainant, ‘Yogender’ also sustained
injuries in the abovesaid occurrence. It was further alleged by the
complainant that after that, ‘Devender’ and ‘Har Swarup’, father of the
complainant, came on the spot and rescued them. According to complainant
all the injured were taken to General Hospital, Bhiwani, where they were
examined medico-legally.
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 Senior Counsel
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
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 Senior 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
307/325/323/34 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 Senior 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 Senior 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 Senior
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 Senior 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.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
11. It has been further contended by learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants that the incident had taken place way back in the year 1998
According to learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the appellants are
facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 28 years and has, in fact,
already suffered more punishment than they deserved. According to learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants, before or after the offence, related to
present case, the appellants have not been prosecuted for any other offence.
12. In addition to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants has also argued that in the present case, the appellant ‘Brijpal’ has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of two months & seven days
and the appellant ‘Sanjay’ for one year & nine months. According to learned
Senior 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 appellant may be treated to be sufficient.
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 307/325/323/34 of IPC. According to learned
counsel for the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of five 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 record has been perused carefully.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
15. 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 307/325/323/34 of IPC.
Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the
judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
16. As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in
view of the fact that the appellant ‘Brijpal’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of two months & seven days and the appellant
‘Sanjay’ for one year & nine months, against the awarded sentence of five
years, it is hereby held that the appellants are entitled to a lenient view.
17. 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 28 years
ago;
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial
for the last more than 28 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of five years, the appellant
‘Brijpal’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
of two months & seven days and the appellant ‘Sanjay’ for
one year & nine months;
(d) that it was the first offence committed by the appellants;
(e) in the last more than 28 years, the appellants have not been
prosecuted for any offence; and
(f) that now the age of the appellants ‘Brijpal’ and ‘Sanjay’ is
more than 42 and 44-year-old, respectively.

18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.


(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE
05.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document