CRR/755/2017 of YOGESH AND ANR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026

::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (249-3)

Reserved on: 08.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement:10.09.2026 Date of Uploading : 11.09.2026

CRR-755-2017 (O&M) Yogesh and anr. ... .Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana

...Respondent

CRR-938-2017 (O&M) Rajbir and ors. ... .Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana

...Respondent

CRR-1966-2017 (O&M) Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya ... .Petitioner(s) Versus Rajbir and ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Preeti Jha, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) (in CRR Nos.755 & 938 of 2017). Mr. Manan Jain, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner (in CRR-1966-2017). Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. This order shall dispose of three revision petitions i.e. two criminal revision petitions bearing No.CRR-755-2017 on behalf of accused- petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Yogesh and Jawant, and criminal revision

::2:: petition No.938-2017 on behalf of accused-petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Rajbir, Lokesh and Ravinder and the third criminal revision petition bearing No.1966-2017 filed on behalf of the complainant-petitioner/Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya as the same arise out of the same FIR.

2. The prayer in the revision petitions bearing No.CRR-755-2017 and CRR-938-2017 is for setting aside the judgment dated 18.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby the three criminal appeals (CRA No.129 of 2016, CRA No.130 of 2016 and CRA No.39 of 2016) filed by the accused-petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/31.03.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari has been dismissed.

3. The prayer in the criminal revision petition (CRR-1966-2017) is for setting aside the judgment dated 18.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby the Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2016 filed by the complainant-petitioner/Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya seeking enhancement of sentence of the accused has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from the revision petition CRR-938-2017.

4. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 16.11.2010. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 30/31.03.2016. Separate appeals filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were dismissed vide a common judgment on 18.02.2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. The instant revision petitions were filed on 28.02.2017, 08.03.2017 and 16.05.2017 respectively

::3:: and have come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of almost 16 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya got recorded his statement to the effect that on 14.11.2010, he alongwith Sandeep son of Ratti Ram, Pardeep son of Sajjan Singh and other 6-7 relatives went to attend the lagan ceremony of his brother’s daughter Poonam at Ghisa-ki-dhani in Tavera car bearing No.HR-55D-6376 which was being driven by driver-Rajbir son of Hazari Lal. Rajbir had consumed alcohol and when the complainant and other relatives in the car noticed that he was not driving the vehicle properly, they asked Sandeep their driver to drive the car. At around 10:00 p.m. when the vehicle reached near Nehchana cut NH-8, then, Rajbir-accused asked the complainant and other members of the family to stop the vehicle and he called some persons. After 15-20 minutes, 6-7 persons came in their Indigo car and the relatives sitting in the Tavera car fled from the spot. The accused persons started beating Pardeep. The accused-Rajbir struck the complainant-Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya with the wheel pana. Accused-Lokesh struck the complainant on his left hand with a piece of wood and accused-Ravinder also hit the complainant with a piece of wood on his left shoulder. The accused persons also beat up Pardeep and after beating them, they took away the complainant, Pardeep and Sandeep in the Tavera car towards Shahajahpur after kidnapping them. When they were apprehended by Shahajahpur police, they (complainant, Pardeep and Sandeep) were got freed from the accused.

::4::

6. Based on the aforementioned allegations, the FIR came to be registered and the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 365 read with Section 34 IPC.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined Sher Singh, SI as PW-1, Yogender Pal as PW-2, Ram Kumar Inspector as PW-3, Pardeep as PW-4, ASI Bijender Kumar as PW-5, Sanjay as PW-6, Head Constable Ravi Kant as PW-7, Sandeep as PW-8, Head Constable Manoj Kumar as PW-9 and Dr. Rajesh as PW-10.

8. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them.

9. Based on the evidence led, the petitioners (in revisions petitions No.755 & 938 of 2017) came to be convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/31.03.2016 as under:- Offence RI Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine U/Ss 323 r/w Section 34 IPC 01 year Rs.1000/- each -- U/Ss 325 r/w Section 34 IPC 01 year Rs.1000/- each month imprisonment in addition

to substantive sentence Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

10. The convicted accused-petitioners (in CRR Nos.755 & 938 of 2017) filed three separate appeals (CRA No.129 of 2016, CRA No.130 of

::5:: 2016 and CRA No.39 of 2016) against the conviction whereas the complainant-petitioner/Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya sought enhancement of sentence by way of an appeal (CRA No.47 of 2016). Vide a common judgment dated 18.02.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, all the four appeals came to be dismissed.

11. Thereafter, while impugning the aforementioned judgments, accused-petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Yogesh and Jaswant preferred CRR-755-2017 and accused-petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Rajbir, Lokesh and Ravinder preferred criminal revision petition No.938-2017 challenging their conviction whereas the complainant-petitioner/Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya filed a criminal revision petition bearing No.1966-2017 seeking enhancement of sentence of the accused-respondents No.1 to 5.

12. During the pendency of the instant revision petitions (CRR Nos.755-2017 &CRR- 938-2017), the accused-petitioners were released on interim bail vide order dated 05.04.2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

13. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners (in CRR Nos.755-2017 and CRR-938-2017), while challenging their convictions contends that the judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court are based on conjectures and surmises. There is a considerable delay in the registration of the FIR which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. No test Identification Parade was conducted to establish the identity of the accused. The medical evidence is totally contrary to the ocular account. Therefore, the petitioners ought to be acquitted of the

::6:: charges framed against them. She further contends that, in case, this Court was to come to the conclusion that the case against the petitioners was well- established and the present petitions were liable to be dismissed, then, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2010 and the matter is coming up for final adjudication after 16 years, the sentence of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

14. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed separate custody certificates dated 01.09.2026 and 09.09.2026 of the convicted petitioners respectively, which are taken on record. He alongwith the learned Amicus Curiae for the complainant (in CRR-1966-2017) contend that the judgments of convictions which have been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court are based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the material on record. The petitioner No.1-Rajbir (in CRR- 938-2017) was in the company of prosecution witnesses for a sufficient long period of time being the driver of their Tavera car and therefore, his identity alongwith that of his co-convicts stands established beyond doubt. The medical evidence of the two injured persons, namely, PW-2 Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya (complainant) and PW-4/Pardeep is totally in consonance with the ocular account. The rapat No.8 was lodged at 5:30 a.m. on 15.11.2010 at the Trauma Centre, Rewari within 07 hours of the occurrence and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR. They, therefore, pray that the present petitions (CRR-755-2017 and CRR-938-2017) are liable to be dismissed. As regards the reduction of the sentence, they contend that the nature of the accusation against the

::7:: petitioners which has fructified into a judgment of conviction which has been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court does not entitle them to the concession as prayed for.

15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

16. A perusal of the evidence would suggest that the judgment of conviction which has been upheld by the Lower Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record. There is no delay whatsoever in the registration of the FIR. The FIR has been registered quite promptly. The medical evidence is totally in consonance with ocular account. Minor discrepancies cannot be given undue importance. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgments dated 30/31.03.2016 and 18.02.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court.

17. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petitions (CRR-755-2017 and CRR-938-2017) and the same stand dismissed.

18. As regards imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out that the FIR was registered way back on 16.11.2010. The matter has come up for final adjudication now after 16 years. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioners (in CRR-755-2017 and CRR-938- 2017), I deem it appropriate to modify their sentence as under:- Name of the Convict Offence U/S RI Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine Yogesh 323 r/w 34 IPC Reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 01 month 22 days (including remission) Rs.3,000/- --

::8:: __________

IPC 01 month 22 days (including remission) (As both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently). Rs.3,000/- To undergo 01 month imprisonment in addition to substantive sentence of RI one year Jaswant 323 r/w 34 IPC Reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 01 month 22 days (including remission) __________ Rs.3,000/- --

IPC 01 month 22 days (including remission) (As both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently). Rs.3,000/- To undergo 01 month imprisonment in addition to substantive sentence of RI one year Ravinder 323 r/w 34 IPC Reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 02 month 23 days (including remission) __________ Rs.3,000/- --

IPC 02 month 23 days (including remission) (As both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently). Rs.3,000/- To undergo 01 month imprisonment in addition to substantive sentence of RI one year Rajbir 323 r/w 34 IPC Reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 02 month 26 days (including remission) __________ Rs.3,000/- --

IPC 02 month 26 days (including remission) (As both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently). Rs.3,000/- To undergo 01 month imprisonment in addition to substantive sentence of RI one year Lokesh 323 r/w 34 IPC Reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 02 month 18 days (including remission) __________ Rs.3,000/- --

IPC 02 month 18 days (including remission) Rs.3,000/- To undergo 01 month

::9:: (As both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently). imprisonment in addition to substantive sentence of RI one year

19. The entire fine amount be paid in equal shares to both the injured i.e. complainant-Yogender Pal @ Kanhiya and Pardeep or their legal representatives as compensation.

20. The present revision petitions (CRR-755-2017 and CRR-938- 2017) stand disposed of in the above terms alongwith the pending applications, if any. CRR-1966-2017 (O & M) In view of the findings arrived at in the connected petitions (CRR-755-2027 and CRR-938-2017), the present revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence of the respondents No.1 to 5 stands dismissed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE September 10, 2026 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No