Sugni And Nar vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

109 CRA-S-1771-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.10.2026

Sanjay
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

109-II CRA-2019-SB-2005 (O&M)

Naresh
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

109-III CRA-S-1849-SB-2005 (O&M)

Vijay Marshal
..... Appellant

VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

109-IV CRA-S-1905-SB-2005 (O&M)

Sugni & Anr.
..... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent


GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
109-V CRA-S-457-SB-2006 (O&M)

Sabajeet
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1771-SB-2005.

Ms. Caral, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-2019-SB-2005.

Mr. Darshan Singh Malwai, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1849-SB-2005.

Appeal (CRA-S-1905-SB-2005) qua appellant No.1
already stands abated vide order dated 13.10.2026.

Mr. Jainainder Saini and Ms. Shilpa Saini, Advocates
for the appellant No.2 in CRA-S-1905-SB-2005.

Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Amicus Curiae
for the appellant in CRA-S-457-SB-2006.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana .

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

All the appeals, detailed hereinbefore, have been filed by the
appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 05.09.2005 and order of
sentence dated 07.09.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge Hisar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.343 dated 28.06.2001, was lodged at the instance of ‘ Inspector
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
Abhey Singh’. The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 399/402 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of
Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines Hisar. 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
learned trial Court.
3. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 05.09.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellants. Thus, vide order dated 07.09.2005, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentences were awarded to the appellants:-


Convicts
Offence
Sentence

under
Section


399 IPC



All convicts
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
each. In default thereof to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two
months each.


402 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
each. In default thereof to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two
months each.


Sabajeet
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.



25(1)(b) of
Arms Act


All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the present appeals have been preferred, by the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
appellants/convicts.
5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘Inspector Abhey Singh’, who
had reported that on 28.06.2001, when he was leading a team of police
officials, deputed for patrolling duty at Jindal Chowk, Hisar in official jeep,
a reliable source gave him a tip-off that near Punjab National Bank, Hisar
inside the boundary wall of High School, 5-6 persons armed with deadly
weapons were hiding and that they were planning to commit dacoity.
6. It was further reported by the above-named police officer that
on receipt of above-mentioned information, he informed the members of the
police party, constituted a raiding party, comprising of police officials,
reaching the spot and surrounded the accused persons. According to above-
named police officer, he overheard the conversation, in which one of the
accused was saying to ‘Sabhajeet’ that they should drop the passenger and if
anyone would obstruct, they should shoot him. The above-named police
officer also reported that thereafter he asked the accused persons in loud
voice to surrender as they had been surrounded by the police, and that, four
persons, present there, succeeded in escaping, whereas two persons were
apprehended on the spot. As per above-named police officer, on enquiry one
person told his name as ‘Sabhajeet’ and the another one as ‘Sugni’. It was
also reported that the names of four accomplices, who escaped, were
revealed as ‘Parveen’, ‘Sanjay @Ganja’, ‘Marshal @Vijay’ and ‘Naresh’.
7. It was a case of the prosecution that on the basis of
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
abovementioned information, 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.
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
Court were perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the
appellants and learned Amicus Curiae , 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 and learned Amicus Curiae, 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 399/402 of IPC and Section 25(1)(b)
of Arms Act, 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 and
learned Amicus Curiae , the evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
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 and
learned Amicus Curiae 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 and learned Amicus Curiae have contended that in the
instant appeals, the appellants are not inclined to challenge the finding of
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the
appellants and learned Amicus Curiae 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.
12. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
appellants and learned Amicus Curiae that the incident had taken place way
back in the year 2001. According to learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Amicus Curiae , the appellants are facing the agony of litigation for
the last more than 25 years and have, in fact, already suffered more
punishment than they deserved.
13. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Amicus Curiae have also argued that in the present case, the
appellant ‘Sanjay’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two
years & three months, the appellant ‘Naresh’ for three years, two months &
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
ten days, the appellant ‘Vijay Marshal’ for two years, ten months & eighteen
days, the appellant ‘Parveen’ for three years, seven months & twenty eight
days, and the appellant ‘Sabajeet’ for three years, two months & twenty one
days. According to learned counsel for the appellants and learned Amicus
Curiae , 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 for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 399/402 of IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of Arms
Act. 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.
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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of
appellant, for the offence under Sections 399/402 of IPC and Section
25(1)(b) of Arms Act. 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 ‘Sanjay’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of two years & three months, the appellant
‘Naresh’ for three years, two months & ten days, the appellant ‘Vijay
Marshal’ for two years, ten months & eighteen days, the appellant ‘Parveen’
for three years, seven months & twenty eight days, and the appellant
‘Sabajeet’ for three years, two months & twenty one 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 25 years
ago;
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial
for the last more than 25 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of ten years, the appellant
‘Sanjay’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period
of two years & three months, the appellant ‘Naresh’ for
three years, two months & ten days, the appellant ‘Vijay
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
Marshal’ for two years, ten months & eighteen days, the
appellant ‘Parveen’ for three years, seven months & twenty
eight days, and the appellant ‘Sabajeet’ for three years, two
months & twenty one days; and
(d) that now the age of the appellants ‘Sanjay’, ‘Naresh’, ‘Vijay
Marshal’, ‘Parveen’ and ‘Sabajeet’ is 42, 51, 45, 42 and 44-
year-old (approx.).
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.
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.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
23. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
Gaurav Thakur


Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.10.31 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document