201-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PRADEEP KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. Present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/08.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, 08.09.2007 registered under Sections Civil Line, Karnal Offence 363 of IPC 366 of IPC 366-A of IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PRADEEP KUMAR V/S HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/08.11.2008 passed by learned ditional Sessions Judge, Karnal, in case stemming from FIR No.453 dated 08.09.2007 registered under Sections 363, 366, 3 Karnal, whereby respondent No.2 was Offence under Section 363 of IPC RI for three years with a Rs.500/- fine, to further undergo SI for 01 month. 366 of IPC RI for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- fine, to further undergo SI for 01 month. A of IPC RI for three years with a fine of Rs.500/- fine, to further undergo SI for 01 month. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2759-2008 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR for for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. Present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/08.11.2008 passed by learned in case stemming from FIR No.453 dated 376/34 of IPC at Police Station was sentenced as under: Sentence RI for three years with a fine of -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 01 RI for three years with a fine of -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 01 RI for three years with a fine of -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 01 It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2759-2008 2. Brief facts of the present case are that came to the police station and filed a complaint, wherein it was stated that respondent No.2 has enticed away the prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage. Hence, the FIR (supra) 3. Learned counsel for the petitio time of incident, the prosecutrix was minor and the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that kidnapping was done with the intention that prosecutrix would be forced or seduced to illicit inter compelled to marry juvenile Gullu, as such, ingredients of offence under Sections 363/366 of IPC are clearly established. He further contends that the learned trial Court has awarded a meagre sentence to respondent No.2 only on the ground that he is 20 Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has not recorded any cogent reasons while awarding the meagre sentence of three years to respondent No.2 for the above sentence of respondent No.2. 4. Per contra appellant as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, this court is not warranted. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, t 2008 2 Brief facts of the present case are that came to the police station and filed a complaint, wherein it was stated that respondent No.2 has enticed away the prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage. (supra) was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner time of incident, the prosecutrix was minor and the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that kidnapping was done with the intention that prosecutrix would be forced or seduced to illicit inter compelled to marry juvenile Gullu, as such, ingredients of offence under Sections 363/366 of IPC are clearly established. He further contends that the learned trial Court has awarded a meagre sentence to respondent No.2 only on the ground that he is 20 years of age and is at the threshold of adult life. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has not recorded any cogent reasons while awarding the meagre sentence of three years to respondent No.2 for the above-said offences and prays for enha sentence of respondent No.2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, this court is not warranted. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR in the present case was lodged Brief facts of the present case are that on 08.09.2007, petitioner came to the police station and filed a complaint, wherein it was stated that respondent No.2 has enticed away the prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage. ner inter alia contends that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was minor and the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that kidnapping was done with the intention that prosecutrix would be forced or seduced to illicit inter-course or would be compelled to marry juvenile Gullu, as such, ingredients of offence under Sections 363/366 of IPC are clearly established. He further contends that the learned trial Court has awarded a meagre sentence to respondent No.2 only on years of age and is at the threshold of adult life. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has not recorded any cogent reasons while awarding the meagre sentence of three years to and prays for enhancement of , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, interference of Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that 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 he FIR in the present case was lodged MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2759-2008 on 08.09.2007 and the last more than 17 not have any criminal antecedents 6. The theory of reformation and rehabilitation aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilised society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate if an offender is not given the opportunity to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. 7. In Deo Narai 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 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 thi 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 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused n law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be 2008 3 and respondent No.2 has been suffering the agony of trial than 17 years. It also appears that not have any criminal antecedents. The theory of reformation and rehabilitation aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilised society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate if an offender is not given the opportunity to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 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 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 the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 of reformation must be suffering the agony of trial for It also appears that respondent No.2/accused do The theory of reformation and rehabilitation aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act committed by him. In a civilised society like ours, it would be truly unfortunate if an offender is not given the opportunity to realise and fully fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful n Mandal vs. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, 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 s 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 as lenient. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State , has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise ot 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 MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2759-2008 granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the n 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. 9. Further, this Court, keeping in view the above mitigating circumstances, has already modified the order of sentence of respondent No.2 to the period of sentence titled as Pankaj vs. State of Haryana Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of sentence dated 08.11.2008 passed by Consequently, the present May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2008 4 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 Further, this Court, keeping in view the above mitigating circumstances, has already modified the order of sentence of respondent No.2 the period of sentence already undergone by him Pankaj vs. State of Haryana vide order of even date. As such, Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of sentence dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HARPREET Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending ature 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 Further, this Court, keeping in view the above mitigating circumstances, has already modified the order of sentence of respondent No.2 by him in CRA-2232-SB of 2008 vide order of even date. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of sentence dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. petition is dismissed. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.27 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment