282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JAGDISH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Lovedeep Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 23.07.2009 Nagar at Jagadhri, order on quantum of sentence dated Magistrate Ist Class, No.177 dated 16.10.2003 Station Sadar, Yamuna Nagar sentenced to undergo RI for 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Lovedeep Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 23.07.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which, judgment of conviction quantum of sentence dated 30.10.2008 Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri 16.10.2003 registered under Sections Sadar, Yamuna Nagar have been upheld sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year under Section 411 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 certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2003-2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna judgment of conviction dated 25.10.2008 and 30.10.2008 passed by learned Judicial Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, in case stemming from FIR registered under Sections 379/411 of IPC at Police been upheld and the petitioner was under Section 411 IPC. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.07.2009 on merits to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. As per his custody undergone actual period of 11 days, out of total MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2003-2009 sentence of one year, other case. 3. Per contra petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (200 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 discretiona case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discreti 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 6. 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 damag to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities 2009 (O & M) 2 one year, awarded by learned trial Court and Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well 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 (200 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 offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discreti 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 is not involved in any 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, 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 ry 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, 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 e caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2003-2009 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noti 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. 7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by th trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioner has been suffering the agony of Since his conviction, the desires to live a peaceful life. undergone a period of learned trial Court 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 411 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be justice, if the sen already undergone by 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri 2009 (O & M) 3 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noti 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 th trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on been suffering the agony of trial for the last conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, one a period of 11 days, out of total sentence of learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section , this Court is of the opinion that it would be justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 23.07.2009 passed by the learned Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, 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. It transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of IPC, for which no minimum earned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 16.10.2003 and the for the last more than 21 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section , this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of tence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2003-2009 however, the order of sentence dated the sentence of rigorous reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2009 (O & M) 4 however, the order of sentence dated 30.10.2008 rigorous imprisonment for one year reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 30.10.2008 is modified to the extent that one year awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment