Sewak Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab

Deepak Manchanda, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 15.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad-hoc) (Fast Track Court), Muktsar whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo SI for a period of one month.

The brief facts emanating from the pleadings are that the case arises from an incident occurred on Diwali night i.e. on 21.10.2006. On 27.10.2006 the statement of injured-Vikram Singh (complainant) was recorded, wherein it was alleged that on 21.10.2006, when he was returning from his work (Baba Auto Fuels Petrol Pump, Lohara, Muktsar), Sewak Singh (appellant No.1/accused) came to him and told him that tubewell owner Gurjant Singh wanted him to operate the tubewell and asked complainant to accompany him. Therefore, the complainant went along with appellant No.1/accused towards the fields of Gurjant Singh. After crossing the road, Gurlal Singh @ Lali (appellant No.2/accused) also joined them. When they reached near the pakka water course, then Bittu (appellant No.3/accused) (brother-in-law of Sewak Singh), who was armed with kappa was standing there. Thereafter, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of complainant’s arms and appellant No.1 inflicted kappa blow to the left side of his neck. Subsequently, he fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, Satpal Singh and Gurjant Singh (owners of the petrol pump) took him to the hospital. On these broad allegations, FIR was registered.

Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the prosecution examined 08 witnesses. The statements of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC were thereafter recorded, wherein the appellants denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. The accused led their defence evidence by examining only one witness-DW-1, namely, Rajinder Singh and closed the evidence. After adjudication, the trial Court vide order dated 15.04.2008, convicted the appellants under Sections 324/34 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal has been filed. Vide order dated 05.08.2026, the proceedings qua appellant No.2-Gurlal Singh @ Lali stand abated as he has expired during the pendency of the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the appellants-Sewak Singh and Bittu Singh have already undergone incarceration for a period of 06 months and 19 days, and 04 months and 21 days respectively, and have remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present appeal. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence and the appellant’s clean antecedents’, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 28.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellants have rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and do not deserve any concession and prays that the present appeal be dismissed on merits.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

A perusal of the judgment reveals that testimony of DW-1 Rajinder Singh was not considered who clearly stated that the injury was caused by unidentified persons during the later hours at the petrol pump. Further, there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR as the incident took place on 21.10.2006 and FIR was registered on 27.10.2006.

As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2006 and the appellants who are aged about 50 years, have already faced a protracted criminal proceedings of more than 20 years.

In the instant case, the appellants have been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of Indian Penal Code as their act had caused injuries to the victim, but it is pertinent to note that as the injury was on the cheek of the victim, therefore, it was not considered as dangerous to life.

While considering the appellant’s prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the appellants have not been involved in any other criminal case and have maintained a clean record, indicating their reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous so as to disentitle them from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 28.07.2026, both the appellants have already undergone more than 04 months of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of two years. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one.

Given the above discussion and without opining on the merits of the case, the present appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants- Sewak Singh and Bittu Singh subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/-each to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today.

Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the appellants stand discharged.

It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the appellants will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence.

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.