Faqir Chand & Anr. vs State Of Punjab

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

101 CRA-S-1457-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2026

Faqir Chand & Anr.
..... Appellants

VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.


The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.08.2005, passed by
the Court of learned Sessions Judge Hoshiarpur, hereinafter being referred to
as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.9 dated 14.01.2004, was lodged at the instance of ‘Parshotam
Lal’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The abovesaid FIR
was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 of
Indian Penal Code, Police Station Garhshankar. 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.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
3. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 18.08.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellants. Thus, vide order of the even date, i.e. 18.08.2005, on the point of
quantum of sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’,
following sentence was awarded to the appellants:-


Sentence

304-II read with
Offence under
Section

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each.
34 of IPC

4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘Parshotam Lal’, the complainant
herein. It was stated by the abovesaid complainant that on 13.01.2004 at
about 10:00 pm, the girls of their street, including the daughter of ‘Faqir
Chand’ (the appellant No.1 herein), were collecting Lohri offerings in the
street. As per complainant, during the abovesaid event, a minor altercation
took place amongst them. According to complainant, upon hearing the
commotion, he (the complainant) along with his brothers ‘Avtar Chand’,
‘Chaman Lal’, and ‘Som Nath’, arrived at the spot, where appellant ‘Faqir
Chand’ and ‘Sada Ram’ (the appellant No.2 herein) were already present. It
was further alleged by the complainant that ‘Faqir Chand’ and ‘Sada Ram’
started hurling abuses to them.
5. The complainant further alleged that when ‘Avtar Chand’
attempted to pacify them and tried to stop them, both the abovesaid accused
(‘Faqir Chand’ and ‘Sada Ram’) caught hold of ‘Avtar Chand’ and inflicted
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
blows, with kicks & punches, on his chest and abdomen. As per
complainant, thereafter the assailants fled from the spot, and that ‘Avtar
Chand’ was rushed to hospital, where he was declared dead. It was further
alleged by the complainant that motive behind the abovementioned
occurrence was that the accused persons wanted to take forcible possession
of vacant land near Ravidas Mandir, and their abovesaid move was opposed
by ‘Avtar Chand’ (the deceased) and other residents.
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 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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
conviction of appellants, for the commission of offence under Section 304-
II/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 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 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 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 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.
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 21 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.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
12. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has
also argued that in the present case, both the appellants ‘Faqir Chand’ and
‘Sada Ram’ have already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years,
one month & two days each. 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.
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 Section 304-II/34 of IPC. According to learned counsel for
the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of seven 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.
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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of
appellants, for the offence under Section 304-II/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 both the appellants ‘Faqir Chand’ and ‘Sada Ram’ have
already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, one month & two
days each, against the awarded sentence of seven 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 21 years
ago;
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial
for the last more than 21 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of seven years, both the
appellants ‘Faqir Chand’ and ‘Sada Ram’ have already
undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, one
month & two days each;
(d) that it was the first offence committed by the appellants;
(e) that in the last more than 21 years, the appellants have not
been prosecuted for any other offence; and
(f) that now the appellants ‘Faqir Chand’ and ‘Sada Ram’ are
more than 74 and 68-year-old, respectively.

GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
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.
21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document