WASIM v. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana

Judgment

#1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 06/07.03.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 457 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and judgment dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner on the basis of the statement made by the complainant, Om Parkash. It was alleged that on 02.12.2001, the complainant approached Police Chowki, Arjun Nagar, and submitted an application stating that he was carrying on the business of jewellery under the name and style of Om Jewellers. He further stated that at about 9:30 p.m., two persons, namely Amrit Pal Singh and Mahinder, informed him that some suspicious persons were present at his shop. Upon -1- 209-1 CRR No.2210 of 2008 (O&M) reaching the spot, the complainant climbed on the roof of the shop and noticed that three persons were attempting to break open the door of his shop with the intention of committing theft therein. On noticing the complainant, all the accused jumped from the roof. While two of them succeeded in fleeing from the spot, the third accused was apprehended at the spot. Upon enquiry, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Anwar. Two instruments for breaking the door (Sabbal and Hammer) were also recovered from the spot. Consequently, FIR No.412 dated

03.12.2001 was registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar under Sections 457/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

#3. A trial was proceeded whereby the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 06/07.03.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri and the petitioner had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 457 IPC. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated 02.09.2008. Hence, the present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against both the judgments.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than 03 months and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the -2- 209-1 CRR No.2210 of 2008 (O&M) conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

#5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 02.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits.

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

#7. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC was thereafter recorded, wherein the petitioner pleaded innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence.

#8. With regard to the allegations in the present case, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, entered the complainant's shop with the intention of committing theft. However, the name of the present petitioner has surfaced solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. Furthermore, prosecution case rests on the assertion that two persons, namely, Amrit Pal Singh and Mahinder, informed the complainant about certain suspicious activity at his shop. However, Mahinder has not been examined by the prosecution, while Amrit Pal Singh (PW-4) did not -3- 209-1 CRR No.2210 of 2008 (O&M) support the prosecution case during trial and was consequently declared hostile.

#9. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2001 and the petitioner, who is 42 years of age, has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 25 years.

#10. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence and without opining upon the merits of the case, 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 petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 02.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 03 months and 05 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of 03 years rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weightage while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

#11. 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: -4- 209-1 CRR No.2210 of 2008 (O&M) “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.”

#12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while modifying the 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.

#13. Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by -5- 209-1 CRR No.2210 of 2008 (O&M) the Courts below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today.

#14. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged.

#15. 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 petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence.

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

09.07.2026 ‘Sandeep’ (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes Yes No No -6-