Abdul Jabbar vs The State Of Haryana on 5 February, 2024

Supreme Court of India
Abdul Jabbar vs The State Of Haryana on 5 February, 2024
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2024 INSC 99

                                                                        REPORTABLE

                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).                        OF 2024
                        [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 8845 of 2023]

                         ABDUL JABBAR                                …APPELLANT(S)

                                                       VERSUS

                         THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.               …RESPONDENT(S)


                                                       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 Appellant as under:

SONIA BHASIN Date: 2024.02.10 13:35:04 IST Reason:
 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:
   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.

….…………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH) .……………………………………J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 05, 2024