Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ABDUL JABBAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Decided
5 February 2024
Judges listed
VIKRAM NATH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 162 · 2024 INSC 99

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 163

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.

p. 163

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”).

p. 163

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: Offence(s) Period of Sentence Fine Imposed 323/34 IPC 03 Months - 325/34 IPC 03 Months INR 5000 (the “Impugned Order”).

pp. 163–164

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.

p. 164

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.

p. 164

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.

p. 164

8

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

p. 164