Kishore Kumar vs State Of Punjab

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.10.2026
110-I
RAJESH KUMAR @ LOVELY @ LALA
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... RESPONDENT
110-II
CRA-S-1825-SB-2005 (O&M)

SHASHI PAL @ SHASHI
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... RESPONDENT
110-V
CRA-S-160-SB-2006 (O&M)
KISHORE KUMAR @ GUJI @ JONY
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 .
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 2
Ms. Shruti , Advocate/Amicus Curiae
for the appellant in CRA-S-1825-SB-2005 .
Ms. G.K. Mann, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Shruti, Advocate,
Mr. Anmol Jewan Singh Gill, Advocate
CRA-S-160-SB-2006
for the appellant in .
Ms . Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab.
*
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J .
All the appeals, detailed hereinbefore, have been filed by the
appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.09.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.123 dated 12.08.2002, was registered in Police Station Islamabad,
District Amritsar, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
307, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. In the wake of abovementioned
FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and on completion of the
same, the appellants alongwith his co-accused were sent to face trial before
the Court.
3. The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 21.09.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellants. Thus, vide order dated 21.09.2005, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentences were awarded to the appellants:-
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 3
Offence
Convicts under Sentence
Sections
148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
In default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two months
each.
Rajesh
Kumar,
Shashi Pal
& Kishore
Kumar
Kishore 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five
Kumar years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default
thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months.
307 read with
Section 149
IPC
Shashipal &
Rajesh
Kumar
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
In default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two months
each.
Shashi Pal 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default
thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two months.
Kishore
Kumar &
Rajesh
Kumar
325 read with
Section 149
IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.
In default thereof to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two months
each.
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
appellants/convicts, hereinafter being referred to as appellants only.
5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR
of the present case came into being at the instance of ‘Harinder Singh’,
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 4
hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’ only. The above-named
complainant stated that he was employed at ‘Raja Garments’, Putlighar,
Amritsar. As per complainant on 12.08.2002, at about 2:30 p.m., he, along
with ‘Vishal’, son of the owner of the aforesaid shop, was crossing the road to
fetch drinking water, and in the meanwhile a scooter arrived at the spot and
two persons riding on the scooter hit ‘Vishal’. As per complainant, when they
objected to the manner of driving, the scooterists threatened them and left the
spot, while extending threats to return along with their companions and
weapons.
6. The complainant further stated that after about 5–10 minutes, the
above-said persons, namely, ‘Jony’, ‘Shashi’ and ‘Lala’, along with 2–3 other
companions, arrived on the spot, again, on scooters. According to
complainant, on arrival, ‘Lala’ exhorted his companions to attack, whereafter
‘Jony’ inflicted a Rambi blow (a weapon used for cutting leather) on the left
Rambi
side of his (the complainant’s) abdomen, whereas ‘Shashi’ inflicted a
blow on the back of his left shoulder. As per complainant, thereafter, ‘Jony’
inflicted another Rambi blow on the left side of his abdomen. According to
complainant, when he screamed for help, all the assailants fled from the spot
along with their respective weapons.
7. 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 under
Section 161 CrPC, and completed other formalities of investigation.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 5
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
Amicus Curiae,
counsel for the appellants and learned 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 307/324/149/148 of IPC, 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 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
Amicus Curiae
of above, the learned counsel for the appellants and learned
have contended that the case against the appellants was not proved by the
prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court recorded the finding of
conviction.
11. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 6
Amicus Curiae
for the appellants and learned 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 2002. According to learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Amicus Curiae , the appellants are facing the agony of litigation for
the last more than 24 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
‘Rajesh Kumar @ Lovely @ Lala’ has already undergone imprisonment for a
period of one year, eight months & seven days, the appellant ‘Shashi Pal @
Shashi’ for one year, ten months & three days and the appellant ‘Kishore
Kumar @ Guji @ Jony’ for three years, four months & twenty two days.
Amicus Curiae
According to learned counsel for the appellants and learned ,
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
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 7
punishable under Sections 307/324/149/148 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 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 findings recorded
by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellants, for the
offence under Sections 307/324/149/148 of IPC. 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 ‘Rajesh Kumar @ Lovely @ Lala’ has already
undergone imprisonment for a period of one year, eight months & seven days,
the appellant ‘Shashi Pal @ Shashi’ for one year, ten months & three days
and the appellant ‘Kishore Kumar @ Guji @ Jony’ for three years, four
months & twenty two days against the awarded sentence of five years, it is
hereby held that the appellants are entitled to a lenient view.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 8
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 24 years
ago;
(b) that the appellants are facing the agony of protracted trial for
the last more than 24 years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of five years, the appellant
‘Rajesh Kumar @ Lovely @ Lala’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of one year, eight months & seven
days, the appellant ‘Shashi Pal @ Shashi’ for one year, ten
months & three days and the appellant ‘Kishore Kumar @
Guji @ Jony’ for three years, four months & twenty two
days;
(d) that in the last more than 24 yeares, the appellants have not
been prosecued for any offence; and
(e) that now the age of the appellants ‘Rajesh Kumar @ Lovely
@ Lala’, ‘Shashi Pal @ Shashi’, and ‘Kishore Kumar @ Guji
@ Jony’ is 43, 41 and 41-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.
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-S-1816-SB-2005 (O&M) and connected cases 9
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.
23. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected
cases.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
vipin
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
VIPIN KUMAR
2026.10.31 14:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document