Sanjay Son Of Dharambir And Others vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

113 CRA-S-1708-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.11.2026

Sanjay & Ors.
..... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

113-II CRA-S-1751-SB-2005 (O&M)

Karambir
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Mr. Kapil Rana and
Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocates
for the appellant No.1 in CRA-S-1708-SB-2005 &
for the appellant in CRA-S-1751-SB-2005.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shashi Kant Singh and Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocates
for the appellants No.2 & 3 in CRA-S-1708-SB-2005.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.



Both the appeals, detailed hereinbefore, have been filed by the
appellants against the same judgment of conviction, i.e. the judgment dated
10.09.2005, and the common order of sentence dated 13.09.2005, 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,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
i.e. FIR No.213 dated 02.05.2004, was lodged at the instance of ‘ Ct. Chhana
Ram’. The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 506 of Indian Penal
Code, Police Station Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad. 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 10.09.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellants. Thus, vide order dated 13.09.2005, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentences were awarded to the appellants:-


Sentence



148 of IPC
Offence under
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default thereof to further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
each.


332 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default thereof to further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
each.
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and
to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default thereof to further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months
each.

333 of IPC


353 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and
to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default thereof to further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month
each.
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each
and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each. In default thereof to
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15
days each.

506 of IPC

GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

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 ‘Ct. Chhana Ram’, who reported
that on 02.05.2004, at about 08:30 pm, when he along with Ct. Shamsher
Singh was on patrolling duty in the area of Village Ismailpur, District
Faridabad, they noticed four young persons consuming liquor at a public
place, situated behind the village school. According to above-named police
official, on being asked not to consume liquor at the public place, one of the
abovesaid four persons, namely ‘Karambir’, got enraged and started
quarrelling with them.
5. As per above-named police official, thereafter ‘Karambir’
inflicted two danda blows upon him, one of which hit on his right eye and
the other one on his head. According to above-named police official, when
‘Ct. Shamsher Singh’ attempted to rescue him (Ct. Chhana Ram) from the
clutches of ‘Karambir’, the remaining two assailants caught hold of ‘Ct.
Shamsher Singh’, assaulted him with fist blows and torn his uniform. It was
further reported by the above-named police official that the accused persons
thereafter continued the assault, as a result of which ‘Ct. Chhana Ram’
sustained injuries on his right eye, head, right leg and waist.
6. It was a case of the prosecution that on the basis of
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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
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 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
148/332/333/353/506 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 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.
10. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellants have contended that in the instant appeal, the appellants
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
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 appeal, the appellants are
challenging the order on the point of quantum of sentence only.
11. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2004.
According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are facing the
agony of litigation for the last more than 22 years and have, in fact, already
suffered more punishment than they deserved. According to learned 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 counsel for the appellants have
also argued that in the present case, the appellant ‘Sanjay’ has already
undergone imprisonment for a period of four months & twenty two days, the
appellant ‘Daya Chand’ for four months & twenty days, the appellant ‘Anni’
for four months & twenty two days and the appellant ‘Karambir’ for five
months & five 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.
In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants have
relied upon the principles of law laid down by this Court in the cases of
‘Sarja Singh & Anr. V/s State of Punjab’ CRA-S-893-SB-2005, ‘Hardeep
Kumar V/s State of Punjab’ CRA-S-1655-SB-2004, ‘Surinder Pal @Shindi
& Ors. V/s State of Punjab’ CRA-S-12-SB-2008 and ‘Jaggu Singh @Jagbir
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
V/s State of Haryana’ CRA-S-429-SB-1991 and by the Madras High Court
in the case of ‘Paramasivam V/s State’ Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2024.
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 148/332/333/353/506 of IPC. According to
learned counsel for the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the
appellants, i.e. imprisonment for a period of three 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.
14. The record has been perused carefully.
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 148/332/333/353/506 of IPC.
Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the
judgment of conviction instant appeals are hereby dismissed.
16. 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 four months & twenty two days, the appellant
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
‘Daya Chand’ for four months & twenty days, the appellant ‘Anni’ for four
months & twenty two days and the appellant ‘Karambir’ for five months &
five days, against the awarded sentence of three 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 22 years
ago;
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial
for the last more than 22 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of three years, the
appellant ‘Sanjay’ has already undergone imprisonment for
a period of four months & twenty two days, the appellant
‘Daya Chand’ for four months & twenty days, the appellant
‘Anni’ for four months & twenty two days and the appellant
‘Karambir’ for five months & five days;
(d) that it was the first offence committed by the appellants;
(e) that in the last more than 22 years, the appellants have not
been prosecuted for any offence; and
(f) that now the age of the appellants ‘Sanjay’, ‘Daya Chand’,
‘Anni’ and ‘Karambir’ is more than 49, 46, 47 and 40-year-
old.

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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
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 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.
21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.
22. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
03.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.04 14:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document