Bunty @ Kulwant Singh vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

107 CRA-S-792-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.11.2026

Bunty @Kulwant Singh
..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Saurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.



The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2005 and order of sentence dated
23.03.2005, 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,
i.e. FIR No.828 dated 21.11.2002, was lodged at the instance of ‘Anil
Kumar ’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The abovesaid
FIR was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections
307, 323, 325 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Panipat. In the wake
of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as
an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial
before the learned trial Court.
3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
virtue of judgment dated 22.03.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellant. Thus, vide order dated 23.03.2005, on the point of quantum of
sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, following
sentences were awarded to the appellant:-


Sentence



323 of IPC
Offence under
Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof to undergo further
imprisonment (simple) for a period of 15 days.


307 of IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default thereof to undergo
further imprisonment (simple) for a period of six months.

Both 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 ‘Anil Kumar’, the complainant
herein. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 15.11.2002, at
about 06:00 pm, when he, along with his cousin ‘Seshan’ and co-villager
‘Sahab Singh’, was going to Village Rasulwa in an auto-rickshaw, he
stopped near the cart of ‘Bunty @Kulwant’ (the appellant herein), situated
near Shiv Chowk, New Mandi, for purchasing meat. According to
complainant, after purchasing meat worth ₹75/-, he found that it was unfit
for human consumption and asked the appellant to take it back. As per
complainant, the appellant refused to take the meat back, which led to heated
arguments between them.
5. The complainant further alleged that thereafter the appellant
picked-up an iron rod and inflicted two-three blows on the head of the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
complainant. According to complainant, on hearing his hue and cry, ‘Seshan’
and ‘Sahab Singh’ arrived at the spot and rescued him. As per complainant,
thereafter, he was taken to hospital, where he was examined medico-legally.
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
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 appellant 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
appellant, 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 appellant ,
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 appellant, for the commission of offence under Sections
307/323 of IPC, was recorded.
9. It has been further contended on behalf of appellant 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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
reasonable doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellant, 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 appellant was convicted, had been proved. In view of
above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case
against the appellant 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 appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not
inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial
Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has categorically contended that
at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the
order on the point of quantum of sentence only.
11. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2002
According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the
agony of litigation for the last more than 23 ½ years and has, in fact, already
suffered more punishment than he deserved.
12. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has
also argued that in the present case, the appellant ‘Bunty @Kulwant’ has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of nine months & twenty days.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed
factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the
offence, for which the appellant has been convicted, the sentence already
undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
13. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondent/State has
argued that the appellant was found guilty for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307/323 of IPC. According to learned counsel for
the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of five years, is already on lower side, and that
the appellant is 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 appellant that he is 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 appellant, for which he was 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 appellant,
for the offence under Sections 307/323 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 the appellant ‘Bunty @Kulwant’ has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of nine months & twenty days, against the
awarded sentence of five years, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled
to a lenient view.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
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 23 ½
years ago;
(b) that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for
the last more than 23 ½ years;
(c) that against the awarded sentence of five years, the appellant
‘Bunty @Kulwant’ has already undergone imprisonment for
a period of nine months & twenty days;
(d) that the appellant was the first offender at the time of
commission of present offence;
(e) that minimum sentence for the offence committed by the
appellant has not been prescribed;
(f) that in the last more than five years, the appellant has not
been prosecuted for any offence; and
(g) that now the age of the appellant is 49-year-old (approx.).

18. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded
to the appellant 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 appellant needs to be rationalized
and reduced.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
19. As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is
hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is 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 appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE

04.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.05 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document