CRA-S-2159 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 105 ISHWAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. dated 25.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.10.2004, passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in which the appellant has been convicted. 2. lodged a complaint at Police Station Rampura. 16.02.2002 in village Chandawas, Smt. Sushma stated that she had been staying at her parental home for a week prior to the incident. On the night of 14/15.02.2002, while she, her sister some persons entered their compound around midnight but left when the dog barked. About 45 minutes later, they returned, abused them, and knocked on the door. Sushma saw Ishwar, a villager, with two unidentified persons in -1- 2159-SB-2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ISHWAR SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned 25.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.10.2004, passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in which the appellant has been Brief background of the case is that lodged a complaint at Police Station Rampura. 16.02.2002 in village Chandawas, Smt. Sushma stated that she had been staying at her parental home for a week prior to the incident. On the night of 14/15.02.2002, while she, her sister-in-law Sarita, and children were asleep, me persons entered their compound around midnight but left when the dog barked. About 45 minutes later, they returned, abused them, and knocked on the door. Sushma saw Ishwar, a villager, with two unidentified persons in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2159-SB-2004 Date of decision: 25.02.2026 ….Appellant ....Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG, Haryana. for setting aside the impugned judgment 25.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.10.2004, passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in which the appellant has been Brief background of the case is that on 15.02.2002, Shish Ram lodged a complaint at Police Station Rampura. During its verification on 16.02.2002 in village Chandawas, Smt. Sushma stated that she had been staying at her parental home for a week prior to the incident. On the night of law Sarita, and children were asleep, me persons entered their compound around midnight but left when the dog barked. About 45 minutes later, they returned, abused them, and knocked on the door. Sushma saw Ishwar, a villager, with two unidentified persons in Appellant ....Respondent judgment 25.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.10.2004, passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in which the appellant has been n 15.02.2002, Shish Ram During its verification on 16.02.2002 in village Chandawas, Smt. Sushma stated that she had been staying at her parental home for a week prior to the incident. On the night of law Sarita, and children were asleep, me persons entered their compound around midnight but left when the dog barked. About 45 minutes later, they returned, abused them, and knocked on the door. Sushma saw Ishwar, a villager, with two unidentified persons in GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRA-S-2159 the courtyard. When she came out, s accused fled, claiming responsibility. On raising an alarm, villagers gathered and rescued the cow and calf. At the time, her father was away in village Bigana, one brother was in the BSF, and the other was living i the fields, leading to the present complaint. 25.10.2004, passed by the appellant was sentenced as under: Name of convicts Ishwar Singh 3. submitted that and restricts sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the has already undergone total sentence 4. Court today, which appellant on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well judgment based on as such, she does not deserve any leniency. 5. has been meticulously examined with their able assistance. -2- 2159-SB-2004 the courtyard. When she came out, she found their chhappar set on fire. The accused fled, claiming responsibility. On raising an alarm, villagers gathered and rescued the cow and calf. At the time, her father was away in village Bigana, one brother was in the BSF, and the other was living i leading to the present complaint. Upon trial, vide judgment dated , passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as convicted and order of sentence dated as under:- Name of Sentence under Section RI Awarded Ishwar Singh 436 IPC 3 years At the very outset, learned counsel for the submitted that he is not assailing the conviction of the and restricts their prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the already undergone total sentence of 01 month 24 days. Per contra, learned State counsel Court today, which is taken on record and opposes the prayer of the on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and he does not deserve any leniency. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance. he found their chhappar set on fire. The accused fled, claiming responsibility. On raising an alarm, villagers gathered and rescued the cow and calf. At the time, her father was away in village Bigana, one brother was in the BSF, and the other was living in a house in Upon trial, vide judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, order of sentence dated 26.10.2004 was Fine In default of payment of fine further RI for Rs.1000/- 6 months At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has not assailing the conviction of the appellant on merits prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant, as he of 01 month 24 days. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in taken on record and opposes the prayer of the on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned correct appreciation of evidence available on record and Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance. he found their chhappar set on fire. The accused fled, claiming responsibility. On raising an alarm, villagers gathered and rescued the cow and calf. At the time, her father was away in village n a house in Upon trial, vide judgment dated , was In default of payment of fine further s on merits prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of he in taken on record and opposes the prayer of the reasoned correct appreciation of evidence available on record and Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRA-S-2159 6. Supreme Court (Three mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court must operate within the principle of pro neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient. 7. 1166, the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a deterrent effect that compel both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature a the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation. 8. Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is gro appreciation of the evidence. Counsel for the the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone. 9. the year 2002 the last more than -3- 2159-SB-2004 In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 Supreme Court (Three-Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC , the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature a the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation. A careful review of the conviction rendered by the learned Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is gro appreciation of the evidence. Counsel for the the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone. Perusal of record indicates that 2 and the appellants have been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 23 years. As per the custody certificate, the State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court portionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient. Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC , the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a s the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal A careful review of the conviction rendered by the learned Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is grounded in a sound appreciation of the evidence. Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone. es that case (supra) was registered in been suffering the agony of trial since years. As per the custody certificate, the appellant has , the Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court portionality, ensuring the sentence is Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC , the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a s the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised nd manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal A careful review of the conviction rendered by the learned unded in a sound not challenged the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a (supra) was registered in been suffering the agony of trial since has GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRA-S-2159 already undergone the total sentence out of substantive sent him. 11. interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by 12. disposed of in the following terms: 13. disposed of. 25.02.2026 Gurpreet -4- 2159-SB-2004 already undergone the total sentence out of substantive sent Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by him. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, upheld. (ii) The order of quantum of 26.10.2004 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him regarding fine and punishment in default is maintained. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No already undergone the total sentence out of substantive sentence awarded to Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present appeal is The judgment dated 25.10.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari is quantum of sentence dated is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 3 years is reduced to the period of sentence already him. However, the sentence regarding fine and punishment in default is Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ence awarded to Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the is reduced to the is passed by the is sentence dated is modified to the extent that the is reduced to the period of sentence already However, the sentence regarding fine and punishment in default is Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) GURPREET 2026.02.28 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.