Abdul Jabbar v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Vikram Nath
Satish Chandra Sharma
Judgment Date: 2024-02-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The impugned order is modified: the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, i.e., 1 month and 3 days, for both 323/34 IPC and 325/34 IPC, with no further imprisonment beyond the period already served. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Jabbar

Respondents

The State of Haryana & Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Deepkaran Dalal
• Karan Singh Dalal
• Raunaq Dalal

Counsels for Respondents

• Raj Singh Rana
• Samar Vijay Singh
• Keshav Mittal
• Ms. Sabarni Som
• Fateh Singh
• Ms. Nilakashi Choudhury

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Jabbar v. The State of Haryana & Ors. concerns a criminal appeal under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC, challenging a High Court modification of sentences after an almost 13-year trial. The Trial Court, in 2013, convicted Abdul Jabbar for offences under 323/34 IPC (three months) and 325/34 IPC (one year with a fine of INR 500). The Additional Sessions Judge and later the Punjab and Haryana High Court partly upheld the conviction but altered the sentences due to the protracted trial, notably reducing the 325/34 sentence to three months with a higher fine (INR 5000). The Supreme Court granted leave and, considering the totality of circumstances—especially that the incident occurred in 2010 and the appellant has already undergone about one month and three days of imprisonment—the appeal was allowed in part and the impugned order was modified to reflect the period already undergone. The proceedings regarding a separate I.A. seeking juvenile status were disposed of without consideration. The decision underscores the impact of lengthy pre-trial delays on sentencing while maintaining that the final period served should anchor the sentence. No costs were awarded. The judgment is delivered by Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 452 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 325 IPCSection 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel submitted that the prolonged trial—spanning about 13 years since the 2010 incident—has caused prejudice and that justice requires sentencing to reflect the time already served. Relying on the fact that the appellant has undergone roughly 1 month and 3 days of imprisonment, and considering the totality of circumstances, they urged reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. Emphasis was placed on fairness, proportionality of punishment, and the absence of additional aggravating factors beyond the admitted acts under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. The applicants also argued that the separate application seeking juvenile status did not require consideration in light of the circumstances before the Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the delay in trial cannot justify leniency in sentencing given the gravity of the offences. They urged sustaining the High Court’s modifications, stressing the need for deterrence and appraisal of the long, multi-year delay in the proceedings. They highlighted the seriousness of the acts under 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and argued for a just but firm sentence that aligns with the period actually served and the gravity of the offences, cautioning against under-sentencing due to procedural delays.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Omdeo Baliram Musale & Ors. v. Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar & Ors.	—	Mentioned Only	Cited in the document's heading/backdrop but not discussed or applied as a controlling principle in the present judgment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 162 : 2024 INSC 99 ## **Abdul Jabbar** ## **v.** ## **The State of Haryana & Ors.** (Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 2024) 5 February 2024 ## **[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]** ## **Issue for Consideration** Matter pertains to conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC and imposition of three months imprisonment, as also conviction u/s. 325/34 IPC and imposition of one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine which was modified to three months imprisonment with Rs 5000/- fine by the High Court. ## **Headnotes** **Sentence/Sentencing – Reduction of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 and u/s. 325/34 – Imposition of three months imprisonment and one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine respectively – High Court modified the sentence of one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine to three months imprisonment with Rs 5000/fine – Correctness:** **Held:** Considering the totality of circumstances, that the appellant has undergone almost 1/3rd of his sentence and that the underlying incident occurred in 2010, the period of almost 13 years gone in the trial, the appellants’ sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, one month and three days – Impugned order modified – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 323/34 and s. 325/34. [Para 5, 6] ## **List of Acts** Penal Code, 1860. ## **List of Keywords** Reduction of sentence; Modification of sentence. ## **Case Arising From** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.748 of 2024 [2024] 2 S.C.R. 163 ## **Omdeo Baliram Musale & Ors. v. Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar & Ors.** From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2023 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No.3005 of 2013 ## **Appearances for Parties** Deepkaran Dalal, Karan Singh Dalal, Raunaq Dalal, Advs. for the Appellant. Raj Singh Rana, AAG, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Ms. Nilakashi Choudhury, Advs. for the Respondents. ## **Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court** ## **Order** 1. Leave granted. 2. The decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (the “ **High Court** ”) in Criminal Revision Petition bearing number CRR No. 3005 of 2013 is assailed before us. 3. The Appellant was prosecuted along with 3 (three) other persons for offences punishable under Section 452, Section 323 and Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (the “ **IPC** ”). Thereafter, _vide_ an order dated 22.04.2013, the Appellant came to be convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, Haryana (the “ **Trial Court** ”) in relation to offences punishable under (i) Section 323 read with Section 34; and (ii) Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellant as under: |Offence(s)|Period of Sentence|Fine Imposed| |---|---|---| |323/34 IPC|03 Months|-| |325/34 IPC|01 Year|INR 500| (the “ **Trial Court Order** ”). 4. The Trial Court Order was assailed before the Additional Session Judge, Nuh unsuccessfully, and thereafter challenged before the High Court. _Vide_ an order dated 01.05.2023, the High Court partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition i.e., upheld the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, however, on account of substantial delay i.e., extending to a period of almost 13 (thirteen) years in the underlying trial, modified the sentence imposed by Trial Court on the Appellant, as under: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 164 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** |Offence(s)|Period of Sentence|Fine Imposed| |---|---|---| |323/34 IPC|03 Months|-| |325/34 IPC|03 Months|INR 5000| ## (the “ **Impugned Order** ”). 5. Mr. Deepkaran Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the Appellant has undergone almost 1/3rd of his sentence i.e., a period extending to 1 (one) month; and 3 (three) days. Furthermore, he has submitted that the underlying offence pertains to 2010 and that the Appellant was made to suffer the agony of a protracted trial spanning over 13 (thirteen) years. Accordingly, it was urged before us that the sentence awarded to the Appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, coupled with the fact that underlying incident occurred in 2010, the appeal is allowed in part and the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the Appellants’ sentence is reduced to the period already undergone i.e., 1 (one) month; and 3 (three) days. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 126067 of 2023 i.e., an application seeking declaration of the Appellant as a juvenile at the time of the underlying offence, does not require any consideration by this Court. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. _Headnotes prepared by:_ Nidhi Jain _Result of the case:_ Appeal partly allowed.