IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 239 Ramanpreet Singh and others State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon whereby the revisionist convicted and sentenced as Under Section 452 I.P.C. 342 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C 323 I.P.C All the sentences were ordered to run 2. Further 10.09.2025 passed appeal filed by the 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by Tarsem Singh before ASI Tilak Raj. He stated that he, along with his brother Sukhdev Singh, was residing in a joint house and adjoining ther IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2707 Date of decision: Ramanpreet Singh and others VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Class, Jagraon whereby the revisionist convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence 452 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/ further undergo imprisonment for a period of 30 days 342 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/ further undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 days. 323 I.P.C Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for 7 days. All the sentences were ordered to run Further challenge is also made passed by the Additional Sessions the petitioners has been dismissed Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by Tarsem Singh before ASI Tilak Raj. He stated that he, along with his brother Sukhdev Singh, was residing in a joint house and adjoining thereto was the house of his uncle IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2707-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.02.2026 ...Petitioners ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Judicial Class, Jagraon whereby the revisionist-petitioners have been Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for 7 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. made to the judgment dated Judge, Ludhiana vide which dismissed Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by Tarsem Singh before ASI Tilak Raj. He stated that he, along with his brother Sukhdev Singh, was eto was the house of his uncle SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) Piara Singh, who had expired about 20 years ago. He had purchased land measuring 4 marlas situated behind his house from Jagnandan Singh vide a registered sale deed. Adjoining the said property, his cousin Ramanpreet Singh had also purchased some land from the same vendor. On 05.11.2013, when the members of his family had gone to meet relatives, he was sitting on a cot near the rear gate of his house at about 12:30 PM. At that time, all the accused, allegedly armed with deadly weapons and acting in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into his house with an intention to cause hurt. Ramanpreet Singh raised a lalkara exhorting others to catch hold of Tarsem Singh to teach him a lesson for purchasing land adjoining their property. It is alleged that Ramanpreet Singh inflicted reverse tokka blows on his left hand and arm, upon which he raised an alarm. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly took him to their house, where accused Sukhmeet Kaur tied him to a fodder-chopping machine with a plastic rope, thereby wrongfully confining him. Thereafter, accused Kulwinder Singh allegedly gave two blows with a baseball bat on his nose and right eye, and Ramanpreet Singh again inflicted a reverse tokka blow on his head. On hearing his cries, his brother Sukhdev Singh and Binder Singh reached the spot and rescued him, whereupon the accused fled away along with their respective weapons. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the criminal law was set into motion. During investigation, the site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and the weapons allegedly used in the occurrence were recovered. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) Upon completion of investigation, the final report was prepared and presented before the Court for further proceedings. 5. Copies of the documents, as envisaged under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were supplied to the accused. 6. After finding a prima facie case, accused was charged under Sections 452/342/323/34, IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. The prosecution examined as many as six prosecution witnesses and the evidence was thereafter closed. 8. The entire evidence was put to petitioners and statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The petitioners denied the same, however, didn’t lead any evidence in their defence. 9. On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon vide judgment dated and sentenced dated 07.02.2020. Appeal against the order of conviction & sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 10.09.2025 Hence, the present petition. 10. After arguing the matter at some length, Counsel for the revisionist-petitioners contends that he does not press the present revision petition on merits and contends that he would confine his challenge only to the quantum of punishment that has been so awarded. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. (i) The occurrence pertains to the year 2013 and the petitioners SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) have faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for more than a decade which in itself has had a considerable deterrent and punitive impact. (ii) That the petitioners are a first-time offender with clean antecedents and have not been involved in any other criminal case. (iii) The petitioners have family responsibilities, including young dependent children. (iv) That the petitioners have already undergone an actual custody of 4 months and 26 days out of the total sentence of 02 years. (v) That the occurrence arose out of a dispute between cousins and is personal in nature (vi) Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone. 11. State counsel, on the other hand, contends that both the Courts have examined the evidence brought on record and concurrently recorded a finding of conviction against the petitioners. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioners is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for imposition of a stringent sentence. The learned State counsel submits that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to society and undermine the administration of criminal justice. In a revisional jurisdiction, neither new line of defence can be adopted nor any reappreciation of the evidence can be undertaken. There is no illegality or perversity that has been pointed out by the petitioners, hence, there is no occasion that would call for upsetting the findings recorded or the sentence awarded and affirmed by the Courts. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments. 13. Since the petitioners have given up the challenge to the judgment of conviction on merits, hence, the said issues are not being gone into at this stage. The discussion is thus restricted solely to the issue of sentencing and quantum of punishment. 14. The purpose of sentencing being both deterrent as well as reformative, hence, while sentencing of an accused factors, such as psychological and sociological circumstances of an accused; the gravity, nature and manner of committing the offence; the consequences, the social reaction of the offence; the antecedents and tendencies of an accused should be taken into consideration. 15. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the petitioners possesses a criminal bent of mind or that their conduct poses any threat to the society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the revisionist- petitioner. 16. This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender’s background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead, the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents, conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea, SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are as follows: “32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies, requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in his authoritative work “Criminology,” observed that: “If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon the behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for which it is given. But punishment always takes place weeks or even months after the offense has been committed, since the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted. Such delay tends to disconnect the punishment from the offense in the mind of the offender, and it may well be considered as merely another painful experience in an unjust world.” 33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,” propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order. 34. While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical, physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’. 35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may not necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’ ‘Criminality’ in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from actions propelled by mens rea. 36. The case in hand is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 239 CRR-2707-2025 (O&M) precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.” 17. Adverting to the facts of the present case and the mitigating circumstances pointed out by counsel for the petitioners, establish that petitioners are a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents. They have undisputedly faced agony of criminal trial for more than 13 years. They are in their Forties and have young children and prolonged incarceration will have an adverse impact on the education and well being of their children. Besides, they have already undergone an actual custody of 4 months and 26 days out of the total sentence of 2 years. 18. Taking into consideration the facts and the mitigating circumstances as noticed above, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence is modified. The sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon vide order dated 07.02.2020 is modified and reduced to the period already undergone. 19. The petitioners be released from custody, if not required in any other case. 20. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 06.02.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.09 20:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document