Ajeet Singh vs State Of Hry

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

117 CRA-S-1972-SB-2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2026

Ajeet Singh
..... Appellant

VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG Haryana.

*

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.


The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2005, passed by
the Court of learned Sessions Judge Narnaul, hereinafter being referred to as
‘trial Court’ only.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR,
i.e. FIR No.371 dated 20.12.2004, was lodged at the instance of ‘Ct. Naresh
Kumar’ . The abovesaid FIR was lodged for the commission of offence
punishable under Sections 332/353/307 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station
Mohindergarh. 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.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
3. The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By
virtue of judgment dated 24.10.2005, hereinafter being referred to as
‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the
appellant. Thus, vide order of the even date, i.e. 24.10.2005, on the point of
quantum of sentence, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’,

following sentences were awarded to the appellants:-
Offence under
Sentence

Section
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default thereof to undergo
further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of two
months

332 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default thereof to undergo
further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of two
months

353 IPC
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default thereof to undergo
further imprisonment (rigorous) for a period of two
months

324 IPC


It was also ordered that the period of detention, if any, already
undergone by the appellant during the course of trial, would be set-off in
accordance with law.
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of
this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ct. Naresh Kumar’, hereinafter
being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named
complainant that on 20.12.2004, at about 05:00 pm, he along with ‘Sh. Vikas
Gupta, IAS, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahendergarh’, was on official duty
near the Bus Stand, Mahendergarh. According to complainant, they were
travelling in official vehicle, i.e. Jeep bearing registration No.HR-35-7777,
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
driven by ‘Desh Raj’. As per complainant, he was accompanying the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate as his gunman, and that on the directions of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, he (the complainant) gave a signal to stop a Tata
Spacio vehicle, bearing registration No.HR20-G-9789, coming from
Mahendergarh town ride.
5. The complainant further alleged that in response to his signal,
initially the driver of the abovementioned vehicle slowed down the vehicle,
but subsequently accelerated its speed and deliberately hit him (the
complainant) with the intention to cause his death. According to
complainant, as a result of abovementioned impact he (the complainant)
suffered multiple injuries, whereas the driver of the abovementioned vehicle
took advantage of the situation and managed to flee from the spot along with
the offending vehicle.
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 police arrested the appellant, who was owner of the
offending vehicle. As per prosecution, thereafter 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 of CrPC was filed.
7. Heard.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
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 its 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
332/353/324 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
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
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
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 2004
According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the
agony of litigation for the last more than 21 years and has, in fact, already
suffered more punishment than he deserved. The learned counsel for the
appellant has further contended that in the present case, the sentence of two
years was awarded to the appellant. As per learned counsel for the appellant,
with regard to abovementioned conviction, it is relevant to note here that the
appellant was not previous convict and even after the abovementioned
offence, he did not indulge in any kind of criminal activity. In view of
above, the learned counsel for the appellant has requested that the appellant
may be accorded the benefit of probation/admonition.
12. 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 332/353/324 of IPC. According to learned
counsel for the respondent/State, the sentence awarded to the appellants, i.e.
imprisonment for a period of two 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.
13. The record has been perused carefully.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
14. 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 332/353/324 of IPC. Accordingly,
the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of
conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
15. 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 appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for
the last more than 21 years;
(c) that admittedly the appellant at the time of commission of
alleged offence was the first offender;
(d) that the appellant has no criminal history and in the last
more than 21 years, the appellant has not been prosecuted
for any other offence, whatsoever; and
(e) that now age of the appellant is 43 year.
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
16. With regard to benefit of probation, the relevant principles have
been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
‘Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar’ (1972) 2 SCC 633. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India while considering the scope of the Probation Act has
held as under: -
“ The Probation of Offenders Act was enacted in 1958 with a
view to provide for the release of offenders of certain
categories on probation or after due admonition and for
matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent
the conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals as
a result of their association with hardened criminals of mature
age in case the youthful offenders are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment in jail. The above object is in consonance with
the present trend in the field of penology, according to which
effort should be made to bring about correction and
reformation of the individual offenders and not to resort to
retributive justice. Modern criminal jurisprudence recognises
that no one is a born criminal and that a good many crimes are
the product of socioeconomic milieu. Although not much can be
done for hardened criminals, considerable stress has been laid
on bringing about reform of young offenders not guilty of very
serious offences and of preventing their association with
hardened criminals. The Act gives statutory recognition to the
above objective. It is, therefore, provided that youthful
offenders should not be sent to jail, except in certain
circumstances. Before, however, the benefit of the Act can be
invoked, it has to be shown that the convicted person even
though less than 21 years of age, is not guilty of an offence
punishable with imprisonment for life. This is clear from the
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
language of Section 6 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of that section
reads as under: -
“ When any person under twenty-one years of age is
found guilty of having committed an offence punishable
with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life),
the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not
sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that,
having regard to the circumstances of the case including
the nature of the offence and the character of the
offender, it would not be desirable to deal with him under
Section 3 or Section 4, and if the Court passes any
sentence of imprisonment on the offender, it shall record
its reasons for doing so.”
17. The similar question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in a subsequent judgment, i.e. in the case of ‘Chellammal and
Another v. State’ 2025 SCC Online SC 870. In the abovementioned case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under: -
“ On consideration of the precedents and based on a
comparative study of Section 360, Cr. P.C. and subsection (1)
of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the
latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former.
Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender,
more twenty one years old, on probation when he is sentenced
to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of
the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in
any case where the offender is found to have committed an
offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than
death or life imprisonment. Additionally, the non-obstante
clause in subsection gives overriding effect to sub-section (1) of
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
Section 4 over any other law for the time being in force. Also, it
is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr. P.C. itself, being a
subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case
where the court could have dealt with an accused under the
provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall
record in its judgment the special reasons therefor.
What logically follows from a conjoint reading of sub-section
(1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. P.C.
is that if Section 360, Cr. P.C. were not applicable in a
particular case, there is no reason why Section 4 of the
Probation Act would not be attracted.
Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an
offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a
matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory
provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several
decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4
of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is
excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in
subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted,
the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration
release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a
mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the
case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfillment
of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation
could be decided either way. In the event, the court in its
discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may
upon considering the report of the probation officer impose
such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the
answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for
the court to record the reasons therefor.”
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
18. Following the precedents discussed above, and taking into
consideration the abovementioned factors, it is hereby observed that the
ends of justice would be better served, if the benefit of probation is accorded
to the appellant and he is released on probation of good conduct. In my
considered opinion, in the given fact situation, instead of awarding sentence
to undergo imprisonment for the period fixed by the learned trial Court, it
shall be more appropriate that the appellant is given the benefit of probation
of good behaviour, mandated under Section-360 of CrPC.
19. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partly allowed with regard to
order on quantum of sentence and the same is hereby modified to the extent
that the appellant shall be released on probation for a period of one year on
furnishing requisite bonds before the learned trial Court. The appellant shall
undertake to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of one
year. Obvious to say that in case of default with regard to terms & conditions
of probation order, the appellant shall receive sentence as and when called
upon to do so.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.


(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
GAURAV THAKUR
2026.11.12 18:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document