Date v. ryana State of Haryana
Case Details
CRR-2939-2022 22 (O&M) -1- 267 Jai Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIG UNJAB AND HARYANA NDIGARH CR CRR-2939-2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.10.2025 Date .....Petitioner Versus ryana State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN MAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the for the petitioner. yana. Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana Mr. AMAN CHAUD AUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petition has b The has been preferred by the petitione titioner against the judgm judgment dated 17.12.2022, passed b Judge, ssed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge
Facts
Gurugram, affirm affirming the judgment/order of r of conviction by trial Court o urt on 14/15.11.2017, w 17, whereby he was convicted and and sentenced to undergo one yea ne year rigorous imprison prisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 411 IPC, in defau default thereof, further un ther undergo 15 days simple imprisonm prisonment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the fac Shor laptop, the facts are that on 31.10.2014, laptop head phone, few few documents along with bag con lainant- ag containing clothes of complainant Anshul Bansal nsal had been stolen from his car, car, parked outside a restaurant, b ant, by breaking its side s side mirror. On the basis of his stat is statement, an FIR was registered o ered on 03.11.2014 under under Section 379 IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, After ation, final report under Section 1 tion 173 Cr.P.C. was pres s presented in the Court against the st the accused-petitioner. On finding inding a
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case, case, charges under Section 411 IPC IPC were framed against him, to whi to which he pleaded not gu not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its The of its version, examined 5 witnesse itnesses. Thereafter, the st the statement of the accused under S nder Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorde ecorded. ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2939-2022 22 (O&M) -2- The incriminating inating evidence was put to him, whi , which he denied, pleading innocen nocence and alleging false g false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after hear The r hearing the learned counsel for t for the parties, convicted nvicted and sentenced the accused-pe petitioner as noticed above, whi e, which further affirmed b rmed by the learned Appellate Court in an appeal preferred by him. 6. 7. Aggrieved petitioner is before this C Aggr this Court. Learned counsel for the petitione Lear titioner, at the very outset, gives ives up challenge to the o the conviction and prays for reduc r reducing the sentence awarded to t d to the petitioner to the o the period already undergone, it be , it being 3 months and 7 days, on t s, on the ground that he t he is a first offender; belongs to th s to the poor strata of the society; so ety; sole breadwinner of h r of his family; has no pending case g case against him; never misused t used the concession of bai of bail and has been facing the agony agony of protracted trial for the last e last 11 years. 8. Learned State counsel opposes on th Lear s on the ground that the trial Court aft urt after appreciating the g the evidence led by the prosecu rosecution, has rightly convicted a ted and sentenced the pet petitioner, therefore, prays for the or the dismissal of the present petitio ition. He, however, aff er, affirms the non-involvement of th t of the petitioner in any other crimin criminal case and the perio e period undergone by him as per the c r the custody certificate. 9. 10. Heard the learned counsel on either s Hear ither side and perused the record. Evidently, PW1-HC Sudhir Kuma Evid Kumar, in his deposition specifical cifically mentioned that that HP company laptop was recovere covered in his presence from the hou he house of the petitioner tioner, which stood corroborated by P d by PW4-ASI Sajjan Singh. On goi n going through the evide evidence on record, the prosecution cution has proved the case against hi inst him. Thus, there is no is no scope for interference in the n the findings recorded and conclusi nclusion arrived at by the y the Courts below. As such, his convi conviction is upheld. 11. ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Insofar as the prayer for reducing th Insof cing the sentence of the petitioner to t to the CRR-2939-2022 22 (O&M) -3- period already un ady undergone is concerned, it would b ould be worthwhile to make a referen eference to the judgment i ment in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of P te of Punjab, CRR-3388-2019, decid , decided on 18.02.2020 wh wherein the accused was convicte nvicted under Section 411 IPC and th and this Court had reduce reduced the sentence of 1 year to the to the period already undergone by hi him, being 3 months onths & 13 days, by considering the f g the fact that he had faced the trial f trial for more than 8 year 8 years and in Rani @ Rano vs. Sta s. State of Haryana, CRR-1328-202 2022, decided on 24.04 24.04.2024, sentence of the petition etitioner, convicted under Section 4 tion 411 IPC, was reduced duced to the period already undergone ergone. 12. Humanistically viewing, the petition Hum petitioner having suffered the ignomi gnominy of trial since long e long; successfully warded off his cri his crime-proneness-an evident learni learning of a lesson; his n; his socio-economic circumstances tances, this Court finds circumstanc mstances warranting reduct reduction discernible. Thus, it would ould serve the ends of justice to redu o reduce his sentence to th e to the period already undergone, how e, however, keeping the fine intact. 13. The order of sentence dated 15.11.2 The 5.11.2017 is modified to the aforesai foresaid extent and as such as such, the present petition stands part ds partly allowed. 29.10.2025 ashok (AMA AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Whether sp Whether re ther speaking/reasoned ther reportable Yes / No Yes : Yes / No : Yes ASHOK KUMAR 2025.11.06 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document