IN THE 201 Gurtej Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 20.03.2008 passed by the learned whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 No.47 dated 18.06.2004 under Sections 326, 324, 323 IPC Police Station Mehna, District Moga Court as under : Offence under Section(s) 326 IPC 323 IPC 323 IPC 324 IPC 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurtej Singh @ Tek Singh VERSUS State of Punjab HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. B.S Bhalla, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, has been modified ated 18.06.2004 under Sections 326, 324, 323 IPC Police Station Mehna, District Moga and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for 1 Rs.1500/ fine further undergo RI for one month. RI for six months with a fine of Rs.200/ fine RI for 15 days. RI for six months with a fine of Rs.200/ fine RI for 15 days. RI for one year with a fine of Rs.500/ HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-609-2008(O&M) Date of Decision : July 30, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. B.S Bhalla, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned Class, Moga, has been modified, in case bearing FIR ated 18.06.2004 under Sections 326, 324, 323 IPC Police Station and the petitioner was sentenced by learned trial Sentence RI for 1-1/2 years with a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine further undergo RI for one month. RI for six months with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine RI for 15 days. RI for six months with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine RI for 15 days. RI for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of , 2025 Petitioner .....Respondent This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.08.2006 passed by the learned FIR ated 18.06.2004 under Sections 326, 324, 323 IPC Police Station learned trial years with a fine of , in default of payment of fine further undergo RI for one RI for six months with a fine of , in default of payment of RI for six months with a fine of default of payment of RI for one year with a fine of , in default of payment of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 fine RI for one month. All the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga and was awarded imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months under Section 326 of IPC, however, the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.03.2008, has altered the sentence from ‘Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC’ with six months rigorous imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2008 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of 15 days, out of total sentence of 1-1/2 years awarded by learned trial Court and is not involved in any other case. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been altered by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve 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 SCC 257, a Three 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 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 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, 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 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. 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 on record. It transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. 9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 18.06.2004 and the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial for the last about 21 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 15 days and out of total sentence of 1-1/2 years awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 08.08.2006 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.200/- along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE July 30, 2025 PC Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document