254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PAWAN KUMAR AND STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 20.02.2023 which, judgment of conviction sentence dated Magistrate, Hisar have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.389 dated 08.06.2005 registered under Sections 323/324/326/148/149/506 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Hisar and the petitioner Court as under : Petitioner(s) name Ramesh and Krishan Pawan 2. The petitioners preferred an appeal before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. Howe IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. L.K. Gollen, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 20.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2013 08.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial agistrate, Hisar have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.389 dated 08.06.2005 registered under Sections 323/324/326/148/149/506 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Hisar and the petitioners were as under : name Offence under Section(s) 323 IPC 326 IPC The petitioners preferred an appeal before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. Howe IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-601-2023 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide dated 05.04.2013 and order on quantum of learned Additional Chief Judicial agistrate, Hisar have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.389 dated 08.06.2005 registered under Sections 323/324/326/148/149/506 of IPC at s were sentenced by learned trial Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for six months each with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, SI for two weeks each. RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for two weeks and a compensation of Rs.4,000/- as compensation to injured Rajender. The petitioners preferred an appeal before learned lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed. However, compensation amount MANISHA 2025.04.08 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-601-2023 of Rs.4,000/- has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/ Pawan to injured Rajender. 3. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificates, petitioner than 15 days and petitioner months and 19 days (including remission any other case. 4. Per contra petitioners as learned trial Court has passed a well on correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 5. I have heard record with their able assistance. 6. 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 cr 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 t offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used 2 has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/ Pawan to injured Rajender. 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 petitioner , petitioners-Krishan and Ramesh have s and petitioner-Pawan Kumar has undergone a period of 05 months and 19 days (including remission) and all of them are Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well on 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 SCC 257 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 t offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner- petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2023 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to petitioners. As per the custody Krishan and Ramesh have undergone a period of more has undergone a period of 05 all of them are not involved in 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, they do not deserve 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 iminal 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 not to be used MANISHA 2025.04.08 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-601-2023 arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in 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 caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities 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 betwee reformation of the accused. 8. 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 o petitioners were minimum punishment has been prescribed. petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have years. Since their citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. petitioner-Ramesh has undergone a period of 16 days; petitioner 3 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 rmation 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. were convicted under Sections 323/326 minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on s have been suffering the agony of trial their conviction, the petitioners have and desire to live a peaceful life. As per Ramesh has undergone a period of 16 days; petitioner arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence 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 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 rmation 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 n 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 n record. It transpires that the 323/326 of IPC, for which no Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 08.06.2005 and the trial for the last more than 19 s have grown into law-abiding As per the custody certificates, Ramesh has undergone a period of 16 days; petitioner-Krishan has MANISHA 2025.04.08 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-601-2023 undergone a period of 17 days and petitioner period of 05 months and 19 days (including remission) and all of them are involved in any other case. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323/326 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by them. 11. Consequently, the present terms :- (i) Additional Sessions Judge, conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 08.04.2013 imprisonment for awarded to petitioners imprisonment for three years awarded to petitioner sentence already (ii) the petitioner remain intact and the not paid by the petitioner April 03, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 4 ergone a period of 17 days and petitioner-Pawan Kumar period of 05 months and 19 days (including remission) and all of them are involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by them. Consequently, the present petition the judgment dated 20.02.2023 Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 08.04.2013 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine with default mechanism awarded to petitioners-Krishan and Ramesh imprisonment for three years and fine with default mechanism awarded to petitioner-Pawan Kumar sentence already undergone by them The amount of compensation the petitioner-Pawan, by the learned remain intact and the petitioner shall pay not paid by the petitioner-Pawan, within 08 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Pawan Kumar has undergone a period of 05 months and 19 days (including remission) and all of them are not Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period is disposed of in the following 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Hisar affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous and fine with default mechanism Krishan and Ramesh and rigorous and fine with default mechanism Pawan Kumar is reduced to the period of them. compensation of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon by the learned lower Appellate Court shall petitioner shall pay the injured-Rajender, if , within 08 weeks. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.08 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment