Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harchand Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 March, 2026
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on: 16.02.2026.
Date of decision: 24.03.2026.
Uploaded on: 24.03.2026.
Whether only operative part of the
judgment is pronounced or the full
judgment is pronounced. Operative part/full judgment
HARCHAND SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present: – Mr. Saksham, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
for the respondent.
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -2-
1. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana, whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to be released on
probation for a period of six months, by modifying the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 20.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in case bearing FIR No. 366 dated
20.10.1997 under sections 323, 452, 506, 342, 365, 148, 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana.
2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that on 19.10.1997, a
medical ruqa was received from Police Post Laddowal regarding the recording
of the statement of an injured person, namely Harnam Singh. Pursuant thereto,
ASI Harjinder Singh reached the Civil Hospital and moved an application
seeking the opinion of the attending doctor regarding the fitness of the injured
to make a statement. The doctor opined that the injured was unfit to make a
statement at that time. Thereafter, on 20.10.1997, ASI Mohinder Singh, along
with other police officials, visited the Civil Hospital and again sought the
opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured. On this occasion, the
doctor declared Harnam Singh fit to make a statement. Accordingly, his
statement was recorded. In his statement, Harnam Singh stated that on
18.10.1997, at about 11:00 PM, he was sleeping in a room along with his wife.
The wife and children of Harchand Singh were sleeping in another room,
while Harchand Singh himself had gone to the grain market to sell paddy. At
that time, his nephew Darshan Singh knocked at the door, which was opened
by his wife. Upon entering, Darshan Singh caught hold of his wife by her hair
and assaulted her. He was accompanied by Gulzar Singh and Avtar Singh,
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -3-
who were armed with motorcycle chains, while Kuldeep Singh, a friend of
Gulzar Singh, and Hans Raj were empty-handed. It is further alleged that all
the accused forcibly entered the house and upon a lalkara raised by Darshan
Singh, Gulzar Singh and Avtar Singh inflicted injuries upon the complainant’s
wife with motorcycle chains. As a result of the assault, she fell to the ground.
Thereafter, Darshan Singh and Kuldeep Singh gave kicks and blows on her
abdomen and back. Darshan Singh also inflicted an injury with a dattar on the
upper side of her head, while Gulzar Singh caused injuries on her eyes, nose,
and other parts of her body. Avtar Singh also inflicted an injury on the
complainant’s abdomen with a motorcycle chain. It is further stated that upon
raising an alarm, Amarjit Kaur, wife of Harchand Singh, awoke and also
raised an alarm. Thereafter, the accused placed the complainant in a tractor-
trolley driven by Darshan Singh. However, due to a mechanical fault in the
tractor, the vehicle stopped on the way and upon noticing the headlights of
another vehicle approaching, the accused fled from the spot along with their
weapons. The motive attributed to the accused is that Darshan Singh intended
to obtain the thumb impressions of the complainant on a will pertaining to
land measuring five acres in his favour. Hence, FIR No. 336 dated 20.10.1997
under sections 323, 452, 506, 342, 365, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Investigation was
carried out and upon completion thereof, the final report challan was presented
against the accused.
3. Upon presentation of the challan before the Ilaqa Magistrate,
copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the
accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C., free of costs. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -4-
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the
Ilaqa Magistrate found a prima facie case to be made out and accordingly
framed charges against the accused under Sections 323, 452, 506, 365 and 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1
Harchand Singh, PW-2 Harnam Singh, PW-3 HC Parghat Singh (wrongly
renumbered as PW-2), PW-4 HC Bhag Singh, PW-5 Amarjit Kaur and PW-6
Dr. U.S. Sooch. Thereafter, the remaining evidence of the prosecution was
closed by order of the Court.
5. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-
respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances were put to them, which
they denied in toto and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead
any evidence in defence.
6. Upon consideration of the evidence led by parties as well as the
arguments advanced before it, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated
20.12.2011 convicted and sentenced the private respondents as under:-
Name of Convicts Under Sections Rigorous Fine
Imprisonment
Gulzar Singh 452 IPC Two years Rs.300/-
365 IPC and Two Years Rs.500/-
323 IPC Six Months Rs.200/-
Avtar Singh 452 IPC Two years Rs.300/-
365 IPC and Two Years Rs.500/-
323 IPC Six Months Rs.200/-
Hans Raj 452 IPC Two years Rs.300/-
365 IPC and Two Years Rs.500/-
323 IPC Six Months Rs.200/-
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -5-
Darshan Singh 452 IPC Two years Rs.300/-
365 IPC and Two Years Rs.500/-
323 IPC Six Months Rs.200/-
Kuldip Singh 452 IPC Two years Rs.300/-
365 IPC and Two Years Rs.500/-
323 IPC Six Months Rs.200/-
All the sentences were to run concurrently. However, in default
of payment of fine, they were to undergo Simple imprisonment for one month.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the private
respondents herein preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 68 dated
12.01.2012 before Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The appellate court,
upon reappraisal of the material on record, dismissed the appeal vide
judgment dated 05.02.2015, holding that no illegality or infirmity could be
found in the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court. However, the
private respondents herein were ordered to be released on probation for a
period of six months. Aggrieved by the grant of probation to the private
respondents, the complainant-petitioner has instituted the present petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the said judgment is erroneous in law, suffers from misappreciation of
facts and has resulted in miscarriage of justice, thereby causing serious
prejudice to the petitioner and prays that the impugned judgment be set aside
and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court be restored.
9. Learned counsel submits that FIR No. 366 dated 20.10.1997 was
registered under Sections 323, 452, 506, 342, 365, 148 and 149 IPC at Police
Station Sadar, Ludhiana, at the instance of Harnam Singh (since deceased),
who was the real uncle of the present petitioner. It is submitted that Harnam
Singh and his wife Lajjo, being aged and issueless, were residing with the
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -6-
petitioner, who was taking care of them. Harnam Singh owned approximately
five killas of land and intended to transfer the same in favour of the petitioner.
Owing to this, respondent No. 5 developed animosity and, along with his
associates, forcibly entered the house of the petitioner in his absence and
assaulted the elderly couple. It is further submitted that upon completion of
trial, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the ocular as well as
documentary evidence, convicted the respondents and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years vide judgment dated
20.12.2011. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents preferred an appeal. During
the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise with the
intervention of respectable persons of the society, pursuant to which the
respondents sought leniency from the Appellate Court.
10. Learned counsel contends that the learned Appellate Court,
taking note of the compromise and statements of the parties, extended the
benefit of probation to the respondents, subject to their good behaviour and
accordingly modified the sentence. It is submitted that the very foundation of
the said order was the compromise arrived at between the parties, which
included specific terms and obligations, particularly requiring respondent No.
5 to transfer a portion of land in favour of his brother, Buta Singh.
11. It is vehemently contended that the respondents have willfully
failed to comply with the terms of the compromise, despite repeated requests
made by the petitioner. Even the intervention of the Panchayat proved futile,
as respondent No. 5 neither appeared nor offered any explanation for such
non-compliance. It is submitted that such conduct demonstrates that the
respondents had no bona fide intention to honour the compromise and had
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -7-
merely used the same as a device to secure leniency from the Court.
12. Learned counsel submits that the concession of probation is
premised upon the good conduct of the accused and the existence of mitigating
circumstances. In the present case, by failing to adhere to the terms of the
compromise, the respondents have not only violated the conditions implicit in
the grant of probation but have also abused the process of law. It is argued
that once the very basis, on which the benefit of probation was granted, ceases
to exist, the respondents cannot be permitted to retain such benefit. It is further
contended that the grant of probation does not obliterate the conviction, but
merely suspends the execution of the sentence. The conviction of the
respondents continues to subsist and once the special circumstances justifying
the grant of probation stand frustrated, the respondents are liable to undergo
the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
13. Learned counsel also submits that the conduct of the respondents,
viewed in its entirety, reveals a dishonest and mala fide intention from the
very inception. The respondents, apprehending affirmation of conviction,
entered into a compromise to secure relief but thereafter deliberately did not
fulfill their obligations. Counsel submits that such conduct disentitles them
from any equitable relief and prays that the impugned judgment granting
probation be set aside and the respondents be directed to undergo the sentence
awarded by the learned Trial Court.
14. Notice was issued to respondents No.2 to 6, i.e., private
respondents herein. A perusal of the order dated 23-01-2017 shows that the
private respondents were served, but none other than respondent No.5 entered
appearance. The matter pertains to the year 2015, and already a period of
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -8-
nearly 10 years has elapsed. Even the counsel for respondent No.5 stopped
appearing. This Court thus appoints Ms. Samridhi Sareen, Advocate, (P-3844-
2017; Mobile No.7830851334) who is present in Court, as the legal aid
counsel on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6. She went through the State file
and has addressed the arguments.
15. Learned legal aid counsel and the counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submit that the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court is
well-reasoned and has been rendered after due consideration of the entire
material available on record. It is contended that the Appellate Court has duly
appreciated the evidence, the nature of allegations, the circumstances of the
case and also noticed the compromise arrived at between the parties and
thereafter exercised its discretion judiciously while extending the benefit of
probation to the respondents. It is submitted that settlement was one amongst
multiple factors that were taken into consideration by the Appellate Court, and
the same was not the only reason. It is submitted that even otherwise, the
respondents are eligible for claiming probation, as per law, even in the absence
of the compromise. Learned legal aid counsel further submits that even
otherwise, more than 11 years since the release on probation, have passed.
The respondents have cleared their probation. Upsetting the order at this
belated stage would be inequitable and unjust to respondents No.2 to 6. It is
further submitted that no illegality, perversity or material irregularity can be
attributed to the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
16. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and have also gone through the documents appended along with the present
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -9-
petition as well as considered the arguments advanced.
17. Before proceeding further into the matter, it is apposite to make
a reference to the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court. The relevant
part thereof reads thus: –
“9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants Sh.
P.S.Saran Advocate, and Ld. Addl. PP for the respondent/State,
with their able assistance, I have carefully gone through the
judgment of the learned trial court. At the very outset of
commencement of the arguments, the accused/appellants have
moved an application that they do not contest the verdict of
conviction accorded by the learned trial court vide impugned
judgment, as they had sorted out the differences with Harchand
Singh. They have requested for taking a lenient view with regard
to the sentence so imposed and has requested for releasing him
on probation. They have also made a statement in this regard.
Statement of complainant Harchand Singh has also been
recorded qua effecting of compromise. It has categorically come
in his statement that two of the appellants are his real brothers
namely Gulzar Singh and Avtar Singh and other appellants are
his real relatives and belonging to the same village. He has also
proved on record the compromise Ex.PX.
10. In the light of the assistance rendered, coupled with the
factum that the appellants have not challenged the judgment of
conviction having been passed by the learned trial court, rather
it is only with regard to sentence part that the learned counsel
for the appellants have laid emphasis for taking lenient view for
releasing the convicts on probation.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
have carefully gone through the record of the learned lower
court. As the appellants have brought to the notice of the court9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -10-by filing of application and have also made their joint statement
in the court on oath that they do not want to contest the appeal
on merits, thus, the appeal preferred against the judgment of
conviction is hereby dismissed, as the appellants through their
counsel have rendered the assistance that they do not dispute the
verdict of conviction, so accorded by the learned trial court.
12. Now coming to the aspect with regard to the sentence part,
the court is of the considered opinion that as the convicts have
been facing the trial since 1998 and as per the ratio decidendi
laid down in 2011(2) Law Herald(P&H) 1648 in case titled as
Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been laid down
by our own High Court that sending the first time offender to Jail
in the company of hard core criminals, unjustified-First time
offender must be given a chance to reform and he be released on
probation. Similarly has been laid down in Case titled as Jagir
Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 2010 (1) RCR(Crl.) Page 525
(P&H), wherein it has been held that in a case of conviction
under Section 326, 324 and 323 of IPC by the Trial Court, the
Hon’ble High Court altered conviction from Section 326 to one
under Section 324 as injury on the person of victim was simple
in nature. However, the accused persons released on probation
on the ground that they were facing protracted trial for more than
17 years and were not habitual offenders.
13. It has been further made clear by our own Hon’ble High
Court that in a theft case under Section 379 of IPC, titled as Surjit
Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, 2010(6) RCR(Crl.) Page 829
that the petitioners are facing the protracted criminal
proceedings since 1999 and there was no criminal antecedents
of accused, the petitioners were directed to be released on
probation of good conduct on payment of costs of the
proceedings to the tune of Rs. 5000/-.
14. Our own Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -11-Hazara Ram and another Vs. Jagir Singh and another 2009(5)
RCR(Crl.) Page 440, has further made crystal that the accused
having no past criminal history and have been facing the
criminal proceedings for the last 17 years. The conviction of
accused was upheld, but order of the sentence set-aside. Accused
was released on probation for a period of two years each.
15. It has been also laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in
case titled as Beant Singh Vs,State of Punjab 2012(1) RCR(Crl.)
Page 594 that the accused was below the age of 18 years when
the offence was committed. Accused was released on probation
keeping his age in view in mind and the fact that he is first
offender. He is married and having a minor daughter and is
looking after his old parents.
16. Thus, taking into the note the totality of the facts and
further that the purpose of imposition of sentence is to serve a
dual purpose i.e. retributive -cum re-formative as the appellants
are the first offenders and have been facing the trial since 1998.
Hence, as per the ratio decidendi laid down in the case law
referred above, the court is of the considered opinion that the
appellants deserve to be released on probation on their
furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one
surety in the like sum by each of them and to be of good behaviour
for a period of six months and not to commit any offence of the
like nature. The amount of the fine so imposed is hereby
converted into the costs of litigation. Trial Court file be sent back
along with copy of this judgment and appeal file be consigned to
the Record Room.
18. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court
reflects that the grant of probation certainly considered compromise as one of
the prime factors, but there were other independent and well-reasoned
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -12-
consideration of relevant legal principles and attendant circumstances by
referring to precedents wherein probation was granted. The said precedents
were not of probation based on compromise, but other governing factors for
probation, which such factors also exist in the present case. The precedents
relied upon and referred to by the Court are the ones that are deemed
applicable on the facts of the case. Hence, the legal fiction that flows
therefrom is that all the attendant circumstances referred to therein, are
reasonably applicable to the case in hand, and hence the same benefit is
extended. The petitioner has also not raised any argument disputing the same
and has rendered his arguments only on non-adherence to the compromise.
19. It is also noticed that the Appellate Court has relied upon a catena
of judgments of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that first-
time offenders, who have undergone the rigours of a prolonged trial and do
not possess any criminal antecedents, ought to be afforded an opportunity of
reformation rather than being subjected to incarceration. The emphasis placed
by the Appellate Court is clearly on the reformative aspect of sentencing,
taking into account that the respondents had been facing trial since the year
1998, i.e., for nearly 17 years.
20. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the compromise, at
best, constituted one of the surrounding circumstances, but was not the sole
determinative factor for extending the benefit of probation.
21. Equally untenable is the argument that failure to comply with the
terms of the compromise would ipso facto entail cancellation of probation.
The order of grant of probation was governed by statutory provisions and
judicial discretion and was not contingent upon the enforcement of private
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -13-
arrangements between parties. Once the Appellate Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction, has extended the benefit of probation on legally sustainable
grounds, the same would not be withdrawn merely on account of an alleged
breach of the compromise.
22. Moreover, a period of 11 years, since the release on probation has
already elapsed. The private respondents have not violated the probation. It
would not be in the fitness of things or equity, at this stage, to interfere in the
order of probation.
23. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge raised by the petitioner,
premised on an erroneous understanding of the basis of the impugned
judgment, is devoid of merit.
24. It is a settled principle of law that in the absence of any
demonstrable perversity, illegality or manifest error in the conclusions arrived
at by the Courts below, the findings so recorded do not call for interference.
It is also settled that where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the view which has commended itself to the Trial
Court and has been affirmed by the Appellate Court ought not to be disturbed
merely on the ground that another view may also be conceivable. It is further
well established that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is inherently limited.
While exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not sit as a court of
appeal to re-appreciate the entire evidence or to substitute its own conclusions
for those arrived at by the Courts below. Interference is warranted only where
there exists a patent illegality, gross perversity, material irregularity or a
manifest miscarriage of justice.
25. In the present case, no such infirmity, be it illegality, perversity,
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
CRR-3716-2015 (O&M) -14-
impropriety, or mis-appreciation of evidence has been pointed out or is
otherwise discernible from the record in the judgments rendered by the
Courts. The findings are based on a proper and judicious appreciation of the
evidence and do not suffer from any error warranting interference in revisional
jurisdiction.
26. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition,
the same stands dismissed.
27. A copy of this order be also sent to the High Court Legal Services
Committee, for further necessary action.
March 24, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 25-03-2026 04:09:05 :::
