241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AJAY STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This dated 28.01.2025 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2025 Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal 22.06.2019 registered under Sections 379 Pundri, District Kaithal imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/ mechanism under Section 411 IPC. 2. The conviction and order of sentence Court. 3. Learned counsel for the the impugned judgment of conviction his prayer to modif sentence already undergone by the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate for the Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against 28.01.2025 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2025 Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in case stemming from FIR No.302 dated 22.06.2019 registered under Sections 379-A, 411 of IPC at Police Station District Kaithal and the appellant was imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/ mechanism under Section 411 IPC. The appellant was convicted and sentenced conviction and order of sentence dated 28/29.01.2025 passed Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2025 prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellant. As per appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-542-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 26.03.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction 28.01.2025 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned in case stemming from FIR No.302 dated A, 411 of IPC at Police Station sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default and sentenced vide judgment of 28/29.01.2025 passed by learned trial contends that he is not assailing 28.01.2025 on merits and restricts quantum of sentence to that of the . As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and 22 days, out of total MANISHA 2025.03.26 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-542-2025 sentence of two years, awarded by learned tr any other case. 4. Per prayer of the well-reasoned judgment available on any leniency. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. 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. 7. 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 2025 (O & M) 2 sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in Per contra, learned State petitioner as learned trial judgment based on correct record and as such, he 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 ial Court and he is not involved in counsel opposes the trial Court has passed a correct appreciation of evidence 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 2025.03.26 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-542-2025 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. 8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learn 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 has restricte sentence. 9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on appellant has been suffering the agony of Since his conviction, the desires to live a peaceful life. undergone a period of 02 months and 22 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other ca 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sen period already undergone by 11. Consequently, the present terms:- (i) The judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (ii) The order of sentence 2025 (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 learn trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. counsel for the appellant has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua The FIR in the present case was lodged on been suffering the agony of trial conviction, the appellant has grown into l to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and 22 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other ca 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. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following (i) The judgment dated 28.01.2025 Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (ii) The order of sentence of dated 29.01.2025 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. Moreover, learned has not assailed the judgment of conviction on prayer only qua modification of quantum of The FIR in the present case was lodged on 22.06.2019 and the for the last more than 5 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the appellant has undergone a period of 02 months and 22 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the tence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the is disposed of in the following 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal is upheld. of dated 29.01.2025 is modified to the MANISHA 2025.03.26 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRA-S-542-2025 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonme and fine of Rs.5,000/ the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 12. Pending disposed of. 13. The jail immediately, if he is not required in any other case. March 26, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 (O & M) 4 extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonme and fine of Rs.5,000/- along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) The jail authorities are directed to release the appellant immediately, if he is not required in any other case. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years along with default mechanism awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already application(s), if any, also stand(s) authorities are directed to release the appellant immediately, if he is not required in any other case. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.26 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment