205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SHARIF AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 24.05.2010 Court, Nuh, vide which on quantum of sentence dated Magistrate, Punhana, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. dated 16.07.1998 Station Punhana Offence under Section(s) 323 r/w Section 149 148 r/w Section 149 325 r/w Section 149 Further, compensation of Rs.21,000/ and all the seven accused were ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/ towards compensation to the victims under Section 357(2) It was order IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Jamshed Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 24.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track vide which, judgment of conviction quantum of sentence dated 22.07.2008 passed by Magistrate, Punhana, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. 16.07.1998 registered under Sections 323/325/34 Punhana and the petitioners were sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence on 149 IPC RI for 06 months. 148 r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 06 months. 325 r/w Section 149 IPC RI for one year Further, compensation of Rs.21,000/ and all the seven accused were ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/ towards compensation to the victims under Section 357(2) It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1954-2010 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track judgment of conviction dated 17.07.2008 and order passed by learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Punhana, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.140 323/325/34 of IPC at Police sentenced as under : Sentence RI for 06 months. 06 months. RI for one year Further, compensation of Rs.21,000/- was awarded to the victims and all the seven accused were ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- each towards compensation to the victims under Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. ed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1954-2010 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners have undergone sentence of one year, any 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 Appel 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 (2004) 7 SCC 257 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 discretionary element is vested in the C 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. 2010 2 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 s have undergone a period of more than 04 months 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 (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 C 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 y 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. petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2010 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. Further, the more than 04 months, out of total awarded by learned trial Court and are not involved in 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, they do 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 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 y 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. MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1954-2010 6. 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 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. 7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioners were no minimum punishment has been prescribed. the petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have years. Since their citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. the petitioners have sentence of one year, any other case. 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 2010 3 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 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 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 Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. s were convicted under Sections 323/325/ no minimum punishment has been prescribed. has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he his prayer only qua modification of The FIR in the present case was lodged on have been suffering the agony of trial their conviction, the petitioners and desire to live a peaceful life. As per s have undergone a period of more than 04 months one year, awarded by learned trial Court and Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 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 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 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 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. It transpires that the 323/325/148/149 of IPC, for which Moreover, learned counsel for has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he modification of quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 16.07.1998 and the trial for the last more than 26 s have grown into law-abiding As per their old custody certificates, more than 04 months, out of total awarded by learned trial Court and are not involved in Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1954-2010 323/325/148/149 interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner period already undergone by 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Fast Track Court, Nuh, however, the order of sentence dated the sentence of is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by May 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2010 4 148/149 of IPC, this Court is of the opinio interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner period already undergone by them. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 24.05.2010 passed by the learned Fast Track Court, Nuh, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 22.07.2008 rigorous imprisonment for one year is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, 22.07.2008 is modified to the extent that one year awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment