CRR-2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (203) BUTA SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: Present:- HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. 19.09.2008 which, judgment of conviction 16.04.2007 bearing FIR No. 337, 338 and 427 of IPC 2. The petitioner Offence 279 IPC 337 IPC 338 IPC 304-A IPC It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 1 2015-2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BUTA SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge judgment of conviction and order 16.04.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FIR No.61 dated 19.07.2000 registered 337, 338 and 427 of IPC at Police Station The petitioner was sentenced as under: Sentence RI for two months. RI for four months. RI for six months. A IPC RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/ fault of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six months. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRR-2015-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. DAG, Punjab. been preferred against the judgment dated arned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide and order on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul in case registered under Sections 304-A, 279, Dialpura have been upheld. sentenced as under: RI for two months. months. RI for six months. RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in de- fault of payment of fine, to undergo RI for six It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 17.03.2025 been preferred against the judgment dated vide quantum of sentence dated case A, 279, MAHIMA 2025.03.25 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRR-2015 3. dated 16.04.2007 dismissed 19.09.2008 been filed. 4. prosecution has failed to prove the case doubt. He further contends that a complainant remained there their own prosecution 1, namely, U regard to the identity of the with the statement Singh, was recorded on 04.10.2 on 19.07.2000. custody of 04 months and 09 days inclusive of remission and is not involved in any other criminal activity. 5. certificate of the petitioner and learned trial Court has passed a well appreciation of evidence available on record the learned lower Appellat leniency. 6. record with their able assistance. 2 2015-2008 The petitioner preferred an appeal against 16.04.2007 passed by the learned trial Court dismissed by learned lower Appellate 19.09.2008. Being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has iled. Learned amicus curiae for the prosecution has failed to prove the case He further contends that admittedly complainant and deceased were coming back from ed there for the entire night, as such, own negligence. She submits that prosecution, shows the wrong side of the vehicle , namely, Upinder Sharma is contradictory with regard to the identity of the accused-petitioner and he was with the statement. Furthermore, statement of PW was recorded on 04.10.2000, wher 2000. She further submits that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 04 months and 09 days inclusive of remission and is not involved in any other criminal activity. Per contra, learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner and opposes the pray learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. preferred an appeal against judgment and order by the learned trial Court, which was also ppellate Court vide judgment dated Being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has for the petitioner inter alia contends that beyond the shadow of reasonable dmittedly, at the time of occurrence, coming back from Jagran and they , as such, the incident took place due to She submits that the site plan relied upon by the e of the vehicle. Further, statement of P is contradictory with his own statement with petitioner and he was duly confronted statement of PW-2, namely, Gurdeep whereas accident in question took place She further submits that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 04 months and 09 days inclusive of remission and is not involved State counsel produces the custody opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by Court and as such, he does not deserve any I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the and order also ourt vide judgment dated Being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has that beyond the shadow of reasonable the and they place due to the site plan relied upon by the PW- with duly confronted , namely, Gurdeep place She further submits that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 04 months and 09 days inclusive of remission and is not involved State counsel produces the custody as the reasoned judgment based on correct eld by not deserve any I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the MAHIMA 2025.03.25 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRR-2015 7. Three Judg 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 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 Ben 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 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, t 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 learned trial Court indicates appreciation of evidence available on record. 9. The FIR/complaint in the present case was lodged on the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last years. Since his conviction, the petitioner/appellant has grown into a law 3 2015-2008 In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 dge 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 element is vested in 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 rarily 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 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 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. The FIR/complaint in the present case was lodged on the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last years. Since his conviction, the petitioner/appellant has grown into a law 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 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 rarily 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 ch 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 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 he 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 no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. The FIR/complaint in the present case was lodged on 19.07.2000 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than years. Since his conviction, the petitioner/appellant has grown into a law Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a 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 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 rarily 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 ch of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in , has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent 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 he manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct and than 24 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner/appellant has grown into a law- MAHIMA 2025.03.25 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CRR-2015 abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has undergone actual sentence of instant case. 10. interest of justice, if the sen period already undergone by 11. following terms: 12. remuneration to 17.03.2025 mahima 4 2015-2008 abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 09 days out of total sentence of instant case. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 19.09.2008 Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 16.04.2007 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for along with default mechanism reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay remuneration to learned amicus curiae for the petitioner (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 17.03.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has undergone actual out of total sentence of one year in the Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the tence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the 19.09.2008 passed by the learned Bathinda affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated is modified to the extent that the sentence rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/ along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. ices Committee is directed to pay for the petitioner as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has undergone actual in the Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the is reduced to the is disposed of in the passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated is modified to the extent that the sentence and fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded to the petitioner is ices Committee is directed to pay MAHIMA 2025.03.25 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.