103-3&4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (i) Samey Singh and Others Sher Singh and Others (ii) Sher Singh Samey Singh and Others CORAM: HON'BLE Present: Mr. Sukhsharan for the petitioner Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for the petitioners in CRR HARPREET SINGH BRAR CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) 1. The present revision petition is preferred by the judgment of conviction 11.03.2003 passed by learned Jagadhari, in the case stemming from DDR No. under Sections 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Samey Singh and Others Versus Sher Singh and Others Versus Samey Singh and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-849-2003. Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate nd Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for the petitioners in CRR-1462-2003. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.(ORAL) 2003 (O&M) The present revision petition is preferred by the of conviction dated 10.03.2003 and order of sentence dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the case stemming from DDR No.15 dated under Sections 323, 325, 34 of Indian Penal Code IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) …Petitioners ...Respondents CRR-849-2003 (O&M) …Petitioner ...Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR 2003. 2003. **** The present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against 03 and order of sentence dated dditional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at 15 dated 21.06.1998 registered Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) in MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) & 01 connected case FIR No.114 dated 506 of Indian Penal Code Jagadhari, seeking respondents herein under: Offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC It was ordered that CRR-849-2003 (O&M) 2. The present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against judgment of conviction 11.03.2003passed by learned Jagadhari, in FIR No. 149, 323, 325, 307 and 306 enhancement of Samay Singh, Jai Pal and Raj Kumari Offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC 2003 (O&M) 2 & 01 connected case dated 20.06.1998 registered under Sections 3 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) at Police Station , seeking enhancement of sentence of the respondents. herein namely Sher Singh and Ram Singh Offence under 323 read with of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for of Rs. 500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one read with Section 34 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for Rs. 500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one month each. It was ordered that both sentences shall run concurrently. 2003 (O&M) The present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against of conviction dated 10.03.2003 and order of sentence dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in FIR No. 114 dated 20.06.1998 registered under Sections 307 and 306 of IPC at Police Station of sentence of the respondents. The Singh, Jai Pal and Raj Kumari were sentenced as under: Sentence 323 read with of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for of Rs. 500/- each imprisonment of one month each. read with Section 34 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for Rs. 500/- each, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of one month each. registered under Sections 323, 325, 148, 149, (hereinafter IPC) at Police Station Sadar, sentence of the respondents. The Sher Singh and Ram Singh were sentenced as Sentence Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine , in default of which rigorous one month each. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of , in default of which rigorous one month each. sentences shall run concurrently. The present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against and order of sentence dated dditional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at registered under Sections 148, at Police Station Sadar, Jagadhari, seeking The respondents herein namely sentenced as under: Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine each, in default of which rigorous one month each. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of , in default of which rigorous one month each. and a fine , in default of which rigorous and a fine of , in default of which rigorous and a fine , in default of which rigorous and a fine of , in default of which rigorous MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) & 01 connected case Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC It was ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently. 3. This common order shall d petitions as it is a matter of version and cross the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from 4. Succinctly, Randhir Singh recorded the statement of Civil Hospital, Jagadhri petitionerNo.1-Samay Singh were cultivating tenants. A civil brothers. On 20.06.1998 was ploughing the land with a tractor, wife Raj Kumari (PW6) and son Adesh Kumar (PW7), garbage from the field barchhi, respondent No.2 with a gandasi, the petitioners insisted No.1-Sher Singh struck No.2-Ram Singh gave a Kumari on the head with a respondent No.4 dandas. A quarrel All injured persons were taken to the hospital. On the statement of the 2003 (O&M) 3 & 01 connected case Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for of Rs. 1000/- each imprisonment of two month each. It was ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently. This common order shall decide both the aforementioned revision as it is a matter of version and cross-version of events. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRR Succinctly, the facts, as alleged, Randhir Singh recorded the statement of petitioner No.4 Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, wherein, he stated that he and his brother Samay Singh were cultivating a piece of tenants. A civil dispute regarding the same n 20.06.1998, at around 11:00 a.m., was ploughing the land with a tractor, petitioner No.4 wife Raj Kumari (PW6) and son Adesh Kumar (PW7), garbage from the field, when respondent No.1 respondent No.2-Ram Singh, armed with a arrived there and objected to their presence on the land. When insisted that they were lawfully cultivating the land, Sher Singh struck petitioner No.4 on the head with a Ram Singh gave a saria blow on his right arm, and Raj Kali struck Raj Kumari on the head with a gandasi. Respondent No.3 No.4-Rajesh, sons of respondent No.2 quarrel ensued and both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. All injured persons were taken to the hospital. On the statement of the Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine each, in default of which rigorous two month each. It was ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently. both the aforementioned revision version of events. However, for CRR-1462-2003. are that on 21.06.1998, ASI petitioner No.4- Jai Pal (PW8) at stated that he and his brother, a piece of agricultural land as was pending among the five at around 11:00 a.m., petitioner No.1-Samay Singh petitioner No.4-Jai Pal, along with his wife Raj Kumari (PW6) and son Adesh Kumar (PW7), were collecting respondent No.1-Sher Singh, armed with a armed with a saria, and Raj Kali, armed and objected to their presence on the land. When they were lawfully cultivating the land, respondent on the head with a barchhi, respondent blow on his right arm, and Raj Kali struck Raj Respondent No.3-Manoj Kumar and No.2, beat Adesh Kumar with ensued and both the parties inflicted injuries to each other. All injured persons were taken to the hospital. On the statement of the and a fine , in default of which rigorous MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) & 01 connected case respondent No.1, petitioner No.4, recorded. 4. After assessing all material on record, the learned convicted and sentenced the matters, as mentioned above. 5. Learned contends that the respondents serious offences record proves their by not awarding the maximum sentence for the offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC to Sher Singh and Ram Singh. respondents have disobeyed the order of the caused injuries and maximum sentence should be awarded 6. Per contra submits that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the respondents (in CRR (petitioners No.1, stemming from FIR warranting their conviction and imposition of an appropriate sentence. It is further contended proved against inflicted grievous injuries on Raj Kali by deliberately running tractor. Moreover, the respondents were found to be forcibly and unlawfully 2003 (O&M) 4 & 01 connected case respondent No.1, FIR(supra) was registered while on the statement of the , a cross-case by way of DDR No. 21 dated 20.06.1998 was After assessing all material on record, the learned convicted and sentenced the petitioners and respondents as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents No.3 and 4 have been wrongly acquitted for serious offences under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC even though their guilt. The learned trial Court has also fallen in grave error by not awarding the maximum sentence for the offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC to Sher Singh and Ram Singh. s have disobeyed the order of the to the petitioners, therefore, they do not deserve any leniency and maximum sentence should be awarded. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the (in CRR-849-2003) namely Samay Singh, Raj Kumari, Jai Pal (petitioners No.1, 2 and 4, respectively, in CRR stemming from FIR(supra) beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt, warranting their conviction and imposition of an appropriate sentence. It is contended that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC stand duly proved against the respondents, as they, in furtheranc inflicted grievous injuries on Raj Kali by deliberately running Moreover, the respondents were found to be forcibly and unlawfully was registered while on the statement of the DDR No. 21 dated 20.06.1998 was After assessing all material on record, the learned trial Court respondents, in their respective s in CRR-1462-2003 inter alia, have been wrongly acquitted for IPC even though the evidence on The learned trial Court has also fallen in grave error by not awarding the maximum sentence for the offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC to Sher Singh and Ram Singh. Further, the s have disobeyed the order of the learned Civil Court and have , therefore, they do not deserve any leniency learned counsel for the petitioner in CRR-849-2003 that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the Samay Singh, Raj Kumari, Jai Pal in CRR-1462-2003), in the case beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt, warranting their conviction and imposition of an appropriate sentence. It is that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC stand duly , as they, in furtherance of a common object, inflicted grievous injuries on Raj Kali by deliberately running her over with a Moreover, the respondents were found to be forcibly and unlawfully , have been wrongly acquitted for the evidence on The learned trial Court has also fallen in grave error by not awarding the maximum sentence for the offences under Sections 323, urther, the have , therefore, they do not deserve any leniency 2003 that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the in the case beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt, warranting their conviction and imposition of an appropriate sentence. It is that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC stand duly common object, a Moreover, the respondents were found to be forcibly and unlawfully MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) & 01 connected case cultivating the disputed land, in blatant violation of the by the learned Civil Court, which was subsequently upheld by the lower Appellate Court in gravity of the offence Raj Kumari, Jai Pal (petitioners No.1, be awarded the maximum sentence permissible under law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real brothers resulted in the alleged and DDR(supra) 8. The FIR 20.06.1998 and the years. It also appears that the antecedents. Pertinently, Section 307/34 of IPC vide judgment CRA-S-573-SB- the duration of custody already undergone by them. respondent No.1 released on probation by this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2025 S-639-SB-2003. with the same as 9. 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 2003 (O&M) 5 & 01 connected case cultivating the disputed land, in blatant violation of the by the learned Civil Court, which was subsequently upheld by the ppellate Court in the civil litigation between the parties. In light of the gravity of the offence, it is urged that the respondents i, Jai Pal (petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 respectively, be awarded the maximum sentence permissible under law. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real brothers resulted in the alleged incident, causing registration of FIR (supra) for their version of events. The FIR and DDR in the present case w and the parties have been suffering the agony of trial appears that the parties involved Pertinently, petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 Section 307/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed by this Court in -2003 and the remainder of their sentence has been reduced to he duration of custody already undergone by them. respondent No.1-Sher Singh and respondent No.2 released on probation by this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2025 2003. Therefore, this Court does no as the parties involved deserve an opportunity to reform. The theory of reformation and rehabilitation aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act ted 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 cultivating the disputed land, in blatant violation of the status quo order passed by the learned Civil Court, which was subsequently upheld by the learned between the parties. In light of the it is urged that the respondents namely Samay Singh, respectively, in CRR-1462-2003) be awarded the maximum sentence permissible under law. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that a property dispute between real , causing registration of FIR(supra) in the present case were both lodged on have been suffering the agony of trial for the last 27 parties involved do not have any criminal petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 have been acquitted under 07.04.2025 passed by this Court in 2003 and the remainder of their sentence has been reduced to he duration of custody already undergone by them. As a matter of fact, respondent No.2-Ram Singh have been released on probation by this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2025 in CRA- , this Court does not find any reason to interfere an opportunity to reform. The theory of reformation and rehabilitation aims at separating the criminal from the crime and compels us to look beyond the one fateful act ted 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 order passed learned between the parties. In light of the namely Samay Singh, MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) & 01 connected case fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. 10. In Deo Narain Hon'ble Supreme Court ha formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute 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 di 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 l 11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by circumstances of each case by noticing the natu 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. 12. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court indicate no perversity which would inspire this Court to interfere and enhance 2003 (O&M) 6 & 01 connected case fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful contributions in society. Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of 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 in 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 circumstances of each case by noticing the natu 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 The findings recorded by the learned trial Court ndicate no perversity which would inspire this Court to interfere and enhance fathom his mistake and channel that awareness into making fruitful . State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the s opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is 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 scretion 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 enient. 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 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 The findings recorded by the learned trial Court in both cases ndicate no perversity which would inspire this Court to interfere and enhance MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1462-2003 (O&M) & 01 connected case the sentence award petitions are dismissed. 13. Pending disposed of. 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. 07.04.2025 manisha 2003 (O&M) 7 & 01 connected case the sentence awarded. Accordingly, both the abovementioned petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : both the abovementioned revision application(s), if any, also stand(s) photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.21 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment