After 22 Years Of Litigation, P&H HC Upholds Four Men’s Convictions For Assaulting Cops, Cuts Their Sentences To Time Served

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, for offences under Sections 148, 332, 333, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from an incident on 2 May 2004 in which police constables on patrol alleged that the appellants assaulted them after being asked not to consume liquor in a public place

The trial court imposed concurrent sentences, including three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 333 IPC.

In appeal, the appellants expressly confined their challenge to the sentences.

They relied on the time already served, the passage of more than 22 years, their conduct since the incident and their ages; the State opposed sentence reduction.

The Court recorded that the appellants had served between four months and twenty-two days and five months and five days.

The convictions concerned offences under Sections 148, 332, 333, 353 and 506 IPC.

In considering sentence, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to modify the sentence and considered the time already served, the lapse of time since the offence, the appellants’ ages, and their reported first-offender status and lack of subsequent prosecution.

The appellants cited Sarja Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, Hardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab, Surinder Pal @ Shindi & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Jaggu Singh @ Jagbir v. State of Haryana and Paramasivam v. State in support of leniency; the judgment does not set out or separately analyse a rule from those decisions.

Although the appellants confined their appeals to sentence, the Court reviewed the trial record and found the prosecution evidence consistent and sufficient to sustain the convictions; it therefore found no basis to interfere with them.

On sentence, the Court treated the offence’s age, more than 22 years of ensuing litigation, the periods already served, the appellants’ ages, and their reported absence of prior or subsequent offending as grounds for leniency.

It concluded that the periods already undergone were adequate to meet the ends of justice.

The appeals were partly allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.