298 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ROHIT KUMAR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 04.12.2024 judgment of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, have been upheld, case stemming from FIR No.161 dated 07.10.2019 registered under Section 304-A of IPC at Police Station City Fazilka and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 304-A IPC 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ROHIT KUMAR V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 04.12.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, have been upheld, case stemming from FIR No.161 dated 07.10.2019 registered under Section A of IPC at Police Station City Fazilka and the petitioner was sentenced Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for Rs.10,000/ fine to undergo SI for 15 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of conviction prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-256-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. has been preferred against the judgment learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide which, quantum of sentence dated 13.03.2023 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.161 dated 07.10.2019 registered under Section A of IPC at Police Station City Fazilka and the petitioner was sentenced Sentence RI for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2024 on merits fication of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. As per his custody MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-256-2025 certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 05 months and 06 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned involved in any other case. 3. Per contra petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary el case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is n arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 6. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage cause to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities (O & M) 2 certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 05 months and 06 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is n arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 05 months and 06 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court and is not State counsel opposes the prayer of the as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been Court and as such, he does not deserve I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a Three ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of ement is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by d not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-256-2025 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing th the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Section 304 punishment has been has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioner has been suffering the agony of Since his conviction, the desires to live a peaceful life. undergone a period of years, awarded by learned trial Court and 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed 304-A of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 13.03.2023 (O & M) 3 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing th the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on been suffering the agony of trial for the last conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 05 months and 06 days, out of total sentence of awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence 13.03.2023 is modified to the extent that the sentence of of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. It transpires that the A of IPC, for which no minimum earned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 07.10.2019 and the for the last more than 05 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of two he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-256-2025 imprisonment for mechanism awarded to the already undergone by 11. The immediately, if not required 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. April 22, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) (O & M) 4 imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. The jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable and a fine of Rs.10,000/- along with default petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence authorities are directed to release the petitioner Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment