306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. SURINDER STATE OF HARYANA 2. HARI RAM STATE OF HARYANA 3. SOMBIR STATE OF HARYANA 4. KULDEEP STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the (CRA & Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate for the appellant. (in CRA Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA V/S HARYANA V/S HARYANA V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the appellants (amicus curiae) CRA-S-572-SB-2005; CRA-S-1555 CRA-S-2100-SB-2005) Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate for the appellant. (in CRA-S-903-SB-2005) Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.03.2025 CRA-S-572-SB-2005 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT CRA-S-903-SB-2005 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT CRA-S-1555-SB-2005 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT CRA-S-2100-SB-2005 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1555-SB-2005 Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-572-SB & 03 connected cases HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This order of mine shall dispose of all the above appeals as all are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRA 2. The instant appeal conviction dated learned Additional Sessions Judge stemming from FIR No. A, B, C, D IPC. 3. The Name of appellant(s) Surinder Sombir, Kuldeep, Hari Ram It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Learned counsel assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restrict their that of the sentence already undergone by the certificates, appellant 10 days; appellant SB-2005 2 & 03 connected cases HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of all the above appeals as all are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are CRA-S-572-SB-2005 titled as Surinder The instant appeal has been preferred conviction dated 15.03.2005 and order of sentence learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court stemming from FIR No.217 dated 16.06.2003 registered under Sections The appellants were sentenced as under: Name of Offence under Section(s) Sentence 489(C) RI for 05 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/ fine to undergo 489(B) RI for 10 years Rs.2,000/ payment of fine to undergo S month each. 489(C) RI for 05 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/ payment of fine to undergo S months each It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Learned counsel(s) for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction their prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the appellants. certificates, appellant-Surinder has undergone actual period of days; appellant-Hari Ram has undergone actual period of This order of mine shall dispose of all the above-mentioned appeals as all are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are Surinder vs. State of Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment of and order of sentence dated 16.03.2005 passed by Fast Track Court), Bhiwani in case registered under Sections 489- sentenced as under: Sentence RI for 05 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 01 month. 10 years with a fine of 00/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 06 each. for 05 years with a fine of ,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 01 months each. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. appellants contend that they are not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2007 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to appellants. As per their custody has undergone actual period of 02 months and rgone actual period of 06 months and 27 MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-572-SB & 03 connected cases days; appellant-Sombir and appellant-Kuldeep has undergone actual period of and 01 day and they are not involved in any other case. 5. Per con appellants as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record deserve any leniency. 6. I have heard learned record with their able assistance. 7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal c 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 not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind th the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 8. 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 SB-2005 3 & 03 connected cases Sombir has undergone actual period of Kuldeep has undergone actual period of and they are not 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 deserve any leniency. 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 SCC 257 ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal c 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 ce 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 mposition 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 has undergone actual period of 06 months and 22 days Kuldeep has undergone actual period of 02 years, 06 months and they are not involved in any other case. 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, as such, they do not 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 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 ce 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 e 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 mposition 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 MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-572-SB & 03 connected cases of reformation m 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 eff reformation of the accused. 9. 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. counsel for the merits, rather he sentence. 10. The and the appellants have years. Since their citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. appellant-Surinder has appellant-Hari Ram has undergone actual period of 06 months and 27 days; appellant-Sombir has undergone actual period of 06 months and 22 days and appellant-Kuldeep has undergone actual period of day and they are not involved in any other case. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sen period already undergone by 12. Consequently, judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2005 SB-2005 4 & 03 connected cases 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 reformation of the accused. 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. counsel for the appellants has not assailed the judgment of conviction on he has restricted his prayer only qua The FIR (supra) in the present case was lodged on appellants have been suffering the agony of their conviction, the appellants have and desire to live a peaceful life. As per their custody certificates, Surinder has undergone actual period of 02 months and 10 days; Hari Ram has undergone actual period of 06 months and 27 days; Sombir has undergone actual period of 06 months and 22 days and Kuldeep has undergone actual period of day and they are not involved in any other case. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellants period already undergone by them. Consequently, all the present appeal of conviction dated 15.03.2005 passed by ust 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 icacy 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. Moreover, learned has not assailed the judgment of conviction on prayer only qua modification of quantum of ) in the present case was lodged on 16.06.2003 been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 21 appellants have grown into law-abiding As per their custody certificates, undergone actual period of 02 months and 10 days; Hari Ram has undergone actual period of 06 months and 27 days; Sombir has undergone actual period of 06 months and 22 days and Kuldeep has undergone actual period of 02 years, 06 months and 01 Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the tence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the appeals are disposed of and the passed by learned Additional MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-572-SB & 03 connected cases Sessions Judge sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for and Hari Ram awarded to appellant mechanism, is reduced 13. High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay remuneration to learned amicus curiae for the 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other cases. March 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) SB-2005 5 & 03 connected cases Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani is upheld, however, the order of 16.03.2005 is modified to the rigorous imprisonment for ten years awarded to appellant and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and awarded to appellant-Surinder and a fine of Rs.1,000/ is reduced to the period of sentence High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay remuneration to learned amicus curiae for the appellant(s) A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable is upheld, however, the order of is modified to the extent that the sentence of years awarded to appellants-Sombir, Kuldeep each and sentence of five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default to the period of sentence already undergone by them. High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay appellant(s) as per rules. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.21 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document