203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KULWANT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This dated 18.04.2011 judgment of conviction passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magist upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.172 dated 17.11. Sections 279/337/338 of IPC at Police Station was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 279 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KULWANT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Nisha, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 18.04.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence learned Additional Chief Judicial Magist upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.172 dated 17.11. Sections 279/337/338 of IPC at Police Station was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for 03 Rs.500/ fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1087-2011 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, quantum of sentence dated 18.01.2010 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.172 dated 17.11.2004 registered under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC at Police Station Subhanpur and the petitioner Sentence RI for 03 months with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1087-2011 337 IPC 338 IPC It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case set up by the prosecution are that on 17.11.2004, complainant ASI Brij Lal to the effect that on 15.11.2004, at about with Varinder was going from Jalandhar to Na Punjab Roadways bus of Patti bearing registration No.PB from the side of Subhanpur, being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit into the motor-cycle of Varinder, who suffered multiple injuries on his he and forehead. Hence, the FIR 3. Learned counsel for the an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in registration of the FIR (supra) as the alleged incident has taken place on 1 FIR (supra) was registered on 17.11.20 of the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner was responsible for drivin vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to the negligence of the injured 2011 2 RI for 03 months with a fine of Rs.500/ fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. RI for 06 months with a fine of Rs.500/ fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Brief facts of the case set up by the prosecution are that on 17.11.2004, complainant-Mukesh Kumar got recorded his statement before ASI Brij Lal to the effect that on 15.11.2004, at about with Varinder was going from Jalandhar to Nadala on separate motor Punjab Roadways bus of Patti bearing registration No.PB from the side of Subhanpur, being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit cycle of Varinder, who suffered multiple injuries on his he and forehead. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in registration of the FIR the alleged incident has taken place on 1 was registered on 17.11.2004. She further contends that presence of the complainant, at the spot, is doubtful. She submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner was responsible for drivin vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in fact, the incident has taken place due to the negligence of the injured, namely, Varinder Singh. RI for 03 months with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 RI for 06 months with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Brief facts of the case set up by the prosecution are that on Mukesh Kumar got recorded his statement before ASI Brij Lal to the effect that on 15.11.2004, at about 4:30 PM, when he along dala on separate motor-cycles, a Punjab Roadways bus of Patti bearing registration No.PB-12-C-9563 came from the side of Subhanpur, being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit cycle of Varinder, who suffered multiple injuries on his head was registered. inter alia contends that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in registration of the FIR the alleged incident has taken place on 15.11.2004, however, the She further contends that presence is doubtful. She submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner was responsible for driving the n fact, the incident has taken place , namely, Varinder Singh. She further MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1087-2011 submits that no prosecution. Lastly, s petitioner has undergone actual period of sentence of six months, any other case. 4. 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. 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 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awa 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 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 factor 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. 2011 3 independent passenger from the bus has been examined by the Lastly, she submits that as per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of 01 month six months, 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 awa 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 arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factor 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 passenger from the bus has been examined by the s per his custody certificate, the 01 month and 13 days, out of total awarded by learned trial Court and is 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, 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 sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each 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 State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1087-2011 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 re 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 co 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 correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Sections for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. 9. 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 months, awarded by learned trial Court and case. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribe 279/337/338 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 2011 4 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 co 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 correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. 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, the petitioner has undergone a period of 01 month and 13 days, out of total sentence of awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribe 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. Consequently, the present petition 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 gard 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 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 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 17.11.2004 and the for the last more than 20 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of six he is not involved in any other Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 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 petition is disposed of and the MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1087-2011 judgment dated affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 18.01.201 imprisonment for awarded to the undergone by him May 12, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 5 judgment dated 18.04.2011 passed by learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence 10 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for six months and a fine along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous along with default mechanism petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment