Surinder Pal And Ors. vs State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008
Reserved on: 14.09.2026

Pronounced on: 15.09.2026

Uploaded on: 15.09.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment

Surinder Pal @ Shindi and others
…Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Argued by:- Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate and
Mr. Ishan Thakur, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.

*
MANDEEP PANNU, J .
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants
th
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15
December, 2007, passed by learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions
Judge, Mansa, vide which all the appellants, along with one Piara Lal, were
convicted and sentenced as follows:
Under Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
awarded default of payment
of fine

Section 147 IPC R.I. for 01 year each -- --
Section 353 read
with Section 149 IPC
R.I. for 01 year each -- --
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -2-

Section 427 read
with Section 149 IPC
R.I. for 01 year each -- --
Section 452 read
with Section 149 IPC
R.I. for 01 year each Rs.1000/- R.I. for 03 months
each
Section 333 read
with Section 149 IPC
R.I. for 02 years each Rs.1000/- R.I. for 03 months
each
Section 332 read
with Section 149 IPC
in respect of causing
hurt to Jai Chand
Parinda, Naib
Tehsildar, to deter
him from his duty
R.I. for 01 year each -- --
Section 332 read
with Section 149 IPC
in respect of causing
hurt to Jarinder Singh
Saggu Tehsildar to
deter him from his
duty
R.I. for 01 year each -- --
Section 506 read
with Section 149 IPC
R.I. for 01 year each -- --
Section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989
read with Section
149 IPC
R.I. for 02 years each Rs.1000/- R.I. for 03 months
each

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that an application
was received from Jatinder Singh Saggu, Tehsildar, wherein it was alleged
th
that on 13 December, 2001, at about 12:35 p.m., he, along with Jai Chand
Parinda, Naib Tehsildar, Mansa, Gurmit Singh, Registration Clerk, Baz
Singh, Patwari Halqa Mansa Kalan, and Janta Singh, Reader to Naib
Tehsildar, Mansa, went to the Court premises for checking the deed writers.
When they asked Satpal, Deed Writer, to show the record, he spoke ill with
them. In the meantime, Advocate Vijay Singla, Advocate Jaspal Goel,
Ankush Singla, Deed Writer, Piara Lal, Deed Writer, Rajinder Kumar alias
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -3-

Raju, Typist, and Surinder Pal, who runs a shop outside the Court premises,
came there and started quarrelling with them. Satpal, Deed Writer, gave a
slap to him, as a result of which his turban fell down. It was further alleged
that Jaspal Goel caught hold of his beard and his other companions also
attacked their party. He and Jai Chand Parinda suffered various injuries.
They pulled the hair of his beard. It was further alleged that Jaspal Goel
and Vijay Kumar Singla stated that these “chuhrae Chamiar” had been
posted there. Following them, the others also started saying that they would
teach these “chuharas” how to do the job. However, they and their two
companions saved themselves and came into the office. In the meanwhile,
all the accused entered his office after breaking the main door, damaged the
chair and glass of the table and further tore the record. Satpal and Ankush
Singla snatched and took away certain record from his hands, stating that
they would set right the brains of these “chuhras”, and went away taking
the record with them. After threatening to kill them, they went away from
his office. They interfered with their official duties, hurt their religious
feelings and further humiliated him and Jai Chand Parinda, who belonged
to the Scheduled Caste. They had also snatched the official record and
threatened to kill them. On the basis of this application, a formal FIR,
Ex.PA, under Sections 353, 186, 452, 382, 427, 332, 333, 506 and 148/149
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered. The accused were
arrested and, after completion of investigation, challan against them was
presented in the Court.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -4-

3. Thereafter, from the perusal of the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. and the documents attached therewith, and after hearing learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the
accused, a prima-facie case punishable under Sections 147, 353/149,
427/149, 452/149, 333/149, 332/149, 506/149 and Section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, read with Section 149 IPC, was found to be made out against the
accused. They were accordingly charged, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Dupinder Kumar, who proved on record five injuries on the person of Jai
Chand Parinda. He deposed on oath that the kind of weapon used was blunt
in respect of all the injuries. The nature of injuries Nos.1 and 5 was
declared to be simple, whereas injury No.2 was declared grievous in nature.
He further proved on record three injuries on the person of Jitender Singh
and stated that the kind of weapon used was blunt in respect of all the three
injuries and further deposed that all the injuries were simple in nature.
5. PW-2 Tarlok Singh, Clerk, proved on record the transfer
orders of Jitender Singh Saggu, Tehsildar, and Jai Chand Parinda, Naib
Tehsildar, as Ex.PG and Ex.PH, respectively. He also proved on record the
Scheduled Caste certificate, Ex.PJ, of Jai Chand Parinda. PW-3 Baz Singh,
Patwari, did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared
th
hostile. He stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e 13 December, 2001,
no such occurrence had taken place in his presence. Similarly, PW-4
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -5-

Gurmeet Singh, Registration Clerk, and PW-5 Gurjant Singh alias Janta
Singh were also declared hostile, as they did not support the case of the
prosecution.
th
6. PW-6 Dr. Sharad Kumar, Medical Officer, stated that on 14
December, 2001, he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health
Centre, Budhlada, and on that day he conducted X-ray examination of
injured Jai Chand Parinda and injured Jitender Singh and proved on record
their reports. PW-7 HC Darshan Singh proved on record the deposit of the
case property of the present case. PW-8 Inspector Harinderpal Singh,
Investigating Officer, proved on record various documents and deposed
that further investigation was conducted by DSP Mukand Singh. PW-9 Jai
Chand Parinda, injured, unfolded the prosecution story as stated by him
before the Investigating Officer. PW-10 ASI Jagdish Kumar deposed
regarding the admission of Satpal in Civil Hospital, Mansa, and recording
of his statement. He stated that as the offence was non-cognizable, he
th
returned to the Police Station and recorded DDR No.17 dated 13
December, 2001, Ex.P7. He further deposed regarding recording of the
statements of the other injured, namely Jitender Singh and Jai Chand
Parinda. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.
7. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations levelled against
them and pleaded false implication. In their defence, the accused examined
DW-1 Avtar Singh, Clerk, DC Office, Mansa, and tendered documents
Ex.D1 to Ex. D11.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -6-

8. Thereafter, learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions
Judge, Mansa, heard the arguments advanced by learned APP for the State
and learned defence counsel and, upon appreciation of the evidence on
record, held the accused guilty and convicted them under Sections 147,
353/149, 427/149, 452/149, 333/149, 332/149 and 506/149 IPC, and under
Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 149 IPC.
9. Aggrieved by the above-said judgment of conviction and
quantum of sentence, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgment, the
present appeal has been preferred by the four accused. The fifth accused,
namely Piara Lal, had filed a separate appeal, i.e CRA-S No.58-SB of 2008 ;
however, the said appeal stood abated qua him, as he died during the
pendency of the said appeal.
10. Learned A.A.G., Punjab, has appeared on behalf of the State
and opposed and contested the present appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the judgment of
conviction firstly on the ground that the complainant, namely Jitender
Singh Saggu, Tehsildar, on whose written application the FIR was
registered, has not been examined by the prosecution, which, according to
learned counsel, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was further
contended that the Investigating Officer, namely DSP Mukand Singh, who
admittedly conducted the further investigation, has also not been examined,
thereby depriving the appellants of an opportunity to test the manner in
which the investigation was conducted.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -7-

12. On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported the
judgment of learned trial Court and submitted that mere non-examination
of the complainant or the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the
prosecution, particularly when the prosecution case is otherwise supported
by the testimony of the injured witness and the medical evidence on record.
13. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds no
merit in the contention. It is true that Jitender Singh Saggu, Tehsildar, who
submitted the written application forming the basis of the FIR, has not been
examined. However, the prosecution case is not founded solely upon his
statement. PW-9 Jai Chand Parinda is himself an injured witness and has
entered the witness-box and supported the prosecution version regarding
the occurrence. His presence at the spot stands corroborated by the injuries
suffered by him, including the grievous injury, and his testimony finds
material corroboration from the medical evidence. Despite lengthy cross-
examination, learned defence counsel has not been able to elicit anything
material in favour of accused or to discredit his testimony in any manner.
His testimony, therefore, inspires confidence and remains unshaken on
material particulars, i.e regarding sustaining of injuries by him. The mere
non-examination of the complainant, therefore, cannot be said to be fatal to
the prosecution case.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the
material witnesses examined by the prosecution had not supported its case.
It was submitted that PW-3 Baz Singh, PW-4 Gurmit Singh and PW-5
Gurjant Singh @ Janta Singh had been declared hostile and had not
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -8-

supported the prosecution version with regard to the occurrence. According
to learned counsel, in the absence of corroboration from these witnesses,
the conviction of the appellants on the basis of the statement of PW-9 Jai
Chand Parinda alone was unsafe, particularly when the other material
witness, namely, Jatinder Singh Saggu, Tehsildar, had also not been
examined by the prosecution.
15. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that merely
because some of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, the
otherwise reliable testimony of PW-9 Jai Chand Parinda could not be
discarded. It was submitted that PW-9 was himself an injured witness and
his presence at the spot stood established from the injuries sustained by
him, which were duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned State
counsel further submitted that there is no requirement in law that a
conviction must necessarily be based upon the testimony of more than one
witness and that the testimony of a solitary injured witness, if found
reliable and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
16. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned State
counsel. The fact that PW-3 Baz Singh, PW-4 Gurmit Singh and PW-5
Gurjant Singh @ Janta Singh did not support the prosecution case and were
declared hostile, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of
PW-9 Jai Chand Parinda. It is well settled that the conviction can be based
upon the testimony of a solitary witness, provided his testimony is found to
be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, PW-9 is not only an
eyewitness but also an injured witness. His presence at the place of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -9-

occurrence is thus established and his testimony finds material
corroboration from the medical evidence. His version with regard to the
occurrence and the role attributed to the accused has remained substantially
consistent. Therefore, merely because the other witnesses did not support
the prosecution case, the testimony of PW-9 cannot be discarded. The
statement of an injured witness, if otherwise found trustworthy, is sufficient
to form the basis of conviction.
17. Similarly, the mere non-examination of DSP Mukand Singh,
who conducted the further investigation, cannot by itself result in acquittal
unless the appellants are able to demonstrate prejudice caused to them on
account of his non-examination. No such specific prejudice has been
demonstrated. The evidence of PW-8 Inspector Harinderpal Singh
establishes that further investigation was conducted by DSP Mukand Singh,
and the substantive evidence regarding the occurrence is available on record
through the injured witness. Thus, non-examination of the complainant as
well as the Investigating Officer, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, does not render the prosecution case doubtful.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has next assailed the
prosecution case on the ground that the X-ray report regarding the fracture
suffered by Jai Chand Parinda is doubtful and has been procured only with
a view to exaggerate the injuries. It has been argued that although Jai
Chand Parinda was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Mansa, he was,
thereafter, allegedly referred to PHC, Budhlada, which was a smaller health
centre, and PW-6 Dr. Sharad Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -10-

the injured persons came to him directly, were not accompanied by any
police official, and no police papers or referral slip were produced before
him. It was, therefore, contended that the alleged fracture was subsequently
introduced in the medical record.
19. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that
PW-6 is an independent medical officer who conducted the X-ray
examination and categorically found fracture of the anterior end of the first
rib on the right side of Jai Chand. He brought the original X-ray register to
the Court and proved the report, and there is no material on record to
suggest fabrication or manipulation of the medical evidence.
20. This Court finds no sufficient basis to accept the contention of
learned counsel for the appellants. PW-6 Dr. Sharad Kumar has
categorically deposed that he conducted the X-ray examination of Jai
th
Chand Parinda on 14 December, 2001 and the X-ray chest P.A. view
showed fracture of the anterior end of the first rib on the right side. He also
produced the original X-ray register and identified the report. The fact that
the injured persons were not accompanied by a police official or that police
papers were not placed before the doctor does not, by itself, establish that
the medical examination was fabricated. Likewise, the non-production of
the referral slip may constitute a deficiency in the documentary record, but
it cannot lead to the conclusion that the X-ray finding itself was false,
particularly when the doctor stood by the report and produced the original
record. His inability to opine whether the injuries could have been self-
inflicted or caused with a friendly hand also does not discredit the existence
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -11-

of the fracture. It only reflects his inability to give an opinion regarding the
manner of infliction. Significantly, the X-ray examination was conducted
on the very next day of the occurrence and no callus formation was seen,
which is consistent with a recent fracture. The defence has not produced
any cogent material to establish that the X-ray facility was unavailable at
PHC, Budhlada or that the alleged referral was inherently impossible. Thus,
the medical evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of conjecture that the
fracture was procured subsequently.
21. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that
the defence evidence, comprising Ex.D1 to Ex.D11, establishes that there
were earlier complaints and proceedings against Jai Chand Parinda and that
his powers had also been withdrawn for a period, thereby furnishing
sufficient motive for his falsely implicating the appellants in the present
case. Learned State counsel, however, has submitted that the existence of
previous complaints or disputes does not, by itself, establish false
implication, particularly when PW-9 is an injured witness whose testimony
is corroborated by medical evidence.
22. The contention does not persuade this Court. The documents
produced by the defence may indicate the existence of previous disputes or
complaints concerning Jai Chand Parinda, but they do not establish that the
present occurrence did not take place or that PW-9 falsely implicated the
appellants. On the contrary, PW-9 himself sustained injuries in the
occurrence and his presence at the spot is corroborated by the medical
evidence. The fact that there may have been previous animosity between the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -12-

parties cannot, in the absence of any material contradiction affecting the core
of his testimony, be made a ground to discard his otherwise trustworthy
deposition. The defence evidence, therefore, does not create such a
reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence or participation of the appellants
as would warrant interference with their conviction under the IPC.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants has lastly contended that the
conviction under the SC/ST Act is wholly unsustainable, as the allegations
regarding the use of caste-based expressions are vague and omnibus. It has
been submitted that the specific allegation that the complainant party was
referred to as “Chuhra Chamar” was attributed by PW-9 to Jaspal Goel,
Advocate, and Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate, whereas both these persons
are not facing trial. As regards the present appellants, there is only a general
allegation that all of them again used the same expression and stated that
they would teach them a lesson. It is argued that there is no specific
attribution as to which of the present appellants uttered the alleged caste-
based words and, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST
Act are not established against them.
24. Learned State counsel has opposed the contention and
submitted that PW-9 has specifically deposed regarding the caste-based
utterances and that his testimony, being that of an injured witness, deserves
to be accepted.
25. On the question as to whether the offence under Section 3 of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants, this Court finds that the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -13-

evidence on record requires a closer scrutiny. The allegation regarding the
use of caste-based derogatory words has to be examined against each of the
accused with some degree of specificity, particularly when the said
allegation constitutes the very foundation of the charge under the special
enactment. In the present case, PW-9 Jai Chand Parinda, while narrating
the occurrence, has specifically attributed the utterance of the words
referring to the caste of the officials to Jaspal Goel, Advocate and Vijay
Kumar Singla, Advocate. It is thereafter stated that the other persons
present there said that they would teach them a lesson. Significantly,
neither Jaspal Goel nor Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocates, is facing trial
along with the present appellants.
26. The difficulty in sustaining the conviction under the SC/ST
Act arises from what follows thereafter. When PW-9 describes the
subsequent incident inside the office, the allegation is that all the accused
again called the officials by the aforesaid caste-based expression and
threatened to kill them. However, there is no specific attribution to any
particular appellant as to which of the appellants actually uttered those
words. The witness has not stated that Surinder Pal, Rajinder Kumar,
Ankush Singla or Satpal, individually or collectively, used the particular
caste-based expression. The allegation against them is thus in the nature of
a general and omnibus allegation that “all of them” uttered the same words.
27. This aspect assumes significance in the facts of the present
case because the prosecution itself has specifically identified the two
persons who allegedly used the caste-based expression at the initial stage of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -14-

the occurrence, namely, Jaspal Goel, Advocate and Vijay Kumar Singla,
Advocate. Once the specific attribution is against persons who are not
facing trial, the subsequent general statement that all the remaining persons
also uttered the same caste-based words cannot, without more, be treated as
sufficient proof against each of the present appellants. There is no
explanation in the testimony of PW-9 as to which particular appellant
uttered which particular words. The evidence does not disclose any
individual role of the present appellants in respect of the alleged caste-
based insult.
28. It is also difficult to accept, in the absence of any further
particulars, that all the persons involved in the occurrence would have
simultaneously uttered, in one voice, the same set of caste-based words, so
as to justify an inference that each of the present appellants individually
committed the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act. The mere use of
the expression “all of them” cannot substitute for proof of the essential
ingredients of the substantive offence. The allegation of caste-based
humiliation is distinct from the allegations relating to assault, damage to
property, obstruction of public servants or entry into the office. The fact
that the appellants may have participated in the occurrence or shared a
common object under Section 149 IPC does not, by itself, establish that
each of them made the particular caste-based utterance constituting the
offence under the special statute. For this, reliance has been placed upon
Balkrushna and ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., 2023(1) AIR
BomR (Cri) 544, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in para No.13
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -15-

has held that “ it is also emerging that threats and utterance on caste abuse
are apparently attributed to all the three applicants at one and the same
time. It is difficult to comprehend as to how three persons in one go, at one
and the same time, could in-chorus use identical words for abusing the
informant on caste basis”.
29. The prosecution was required to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the caste-based insult was made by the accused against the
members of the Scheduled Caste, with the requisite intention contemplated
by the statutory provision and in the circumstances constituting the offence.
In the present case, the evidence does not satisfactorily establish this
essential ingredient against any of the present appellants individually. The
specific allegation is against Jaspal Goel and Vijay Kumar Singla, who are
not before this Court as accused, whereas against the present appellants
there is only a vague and omnibus attribution. The benefit of such lack of
specificity must necessarily go to the appellants.
30. Thus, even though the evidence on record may be sufficient to
establish the occurrence and the participation of the appellants in the other
offences proved against them, this Court is not persuaded that the
prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the
offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act by the present appellants. Their
conviction under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 149 IPC is,
accordingly, liable to be set aside, while their conviction for the remaining
offences is not affected by this finding.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -16-

31. Accordingly, while the conviction of the appellants under
Sections 147, 353/149, 427/149, 452/149, 333/149, 332/149 and 506/149
IPC is found to be sustainable, their conviction under Section 3 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
read with Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
32. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 353/149, 427/149,
452/149, 333/149, 332/149 and 506/149 IPC is upheld, whereas their
conviction under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside.
33. Coming to the quantum of sentence, the highest sentence
awarded to the appellants is rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 333 read with Section
149 IPC. It may be noticed that Section 333 IPC prescribes imprisonment
which may extend to ten years and fine, and there is no minimum sentence
prescribed thereunder.
34. Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that, having
regard to the considerable lapse of time since the occurrence, the appellants
may either be released on probation or, in the alternative, the sentence
imposed upon them may be suitably reduced. It has been submitted that the
occurrence is of 13.12.2001 and the appellants have faced the agony of
criminal proceedings for almost 25 years. It has further been submitted that
the appellants have been on bail during the pendency of the appeal and that
sending them to custody at this distant point of time would serve no useful
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -17-

purpose.
35. The prayer for extending the benefit of probation cannot be
considered in isolation from the nature of the offence, however, the
extraordinary delay of almost 25 years since the occurrence is certainly a
relevant circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. In this
regard, guidance can be drawn from the judgment of this Court in Buta
Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 605 . In
that case also, the appellants had been convicted under Section 333 IPC
and the substantive sentence imposed upon them was rigorous
imprisonment for three years along with fine. The occurrence therein had
taken place in the year 1991 and, at the time of decision of the appeal in
2004, more than 13 years had elapsed. While upholding the conviction, this
Court took into consideration the long passage of time, the responsibilities
which the appellants would have acquired during the intervening period
and the hardship which their incarceration at that stage would cause to their
settled lives and families. Relying upon Rakesh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, 1998(4) RCR (Criminal) 436 , this Court observed that
notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence, the ends of justice would be
met by not sending the appellants to jail after such a long lapse of time and
accordingly released them on probation for a period of three years on their
furnishing bonds and sureties, with a direction to pay compensation to the
complainant.
36. The aforesaid judgment is of considerable assistance in the
facts of the present case. Here, the occurrence took place on 13.12.2001
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -18-

and almost 25 years have elapsed thereafter, which is substantially longer
than the period considered by this Court in Buta Singh’s case (supra) . The
appellants have remained facing the criminal proceedings for all these
years. The conviction under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is being set aside for the
reasons recorded hereinbefore. Consequently, the highest substantive
sentence now remaining against the appellants is that of two years’ rigorous
imprisonment under Section 333 read with Section 149 IPC. There is also
nothing on record to show that the appellants are previous convicts. At this
stage, sending them to prison after an interval of almost 25 years would, in
the considered opinion of this Court, be unduly harsh and would not
advance the cause of justice.
37. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
appellants under the remaining offences, instead of sending them to jail to
undergo the substantive sentences imposed by learned trial Court, the
appellants are directed to be released on probation of good conduct under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one year,
subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate concerned. The appellants shall undertake to keep peace and be
of good behaviour during the said period and shall appear and receive
sentence as and when called upon to do so.
38. In case of failure to furnish the requisite bonds or to comply
with the conditions of probation, the appellants shall be liable to be dealt
NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD

CRA-S No.12-SB of 2008 -19-

with in accordance with law.
39. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 353/149,
427/149, 452/149, 333/149, 332/149 and 506/149 IPC is maintained,
whereas their conviction under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section
149 IPC is set aside. The substantive sentences awarded by the learned trial
Court are modified in the aforesaid terms.
40. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU)
15.09.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No


NEETU RANI
2026.09.15 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD