255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA INDERJIT SINGH @ BOGHA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Ms. Gurinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 03.08.2011 which, judgment of conviction 25.03.2010 passed by been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. under Sections petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 279 IPC 304-A IPC It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH INDERJIT SINGH @ BOGHA V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate with Ms. Gurinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 03.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction and order on passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.138 under Sections 279/337/427 of IPC at Police Station petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for 06 months RI for Rs.1,000/ fine, to further undergo RI for 03 months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of conviction IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1899-2011 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide on quantum of sentence dated Judicial Magistrate, Phul have 138 dated 30.09.2004 registered of IPC at Police Station Rampura and the Sentence 06 months. RI for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 03 months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2011 on merits MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1899-2011 and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by th certificate, the petitioner has undergone out of total sentence of involved in 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 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 (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. 6. Further, a two Judge Ben Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 2011 2 prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of out of total sentence of two years, awarded by learned trial Court and involved in any other case. 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. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to e petitioner. As per his custody period of 04 months and 06 days, awarded by learned trial Court and is not 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 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. ch of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1899-2011 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 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. petitioner was convicted under Sections minimum punishment has been prescribed. petitioner 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 years, awarded by learned trial Court and 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 2011 3 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. petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304 minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has 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 conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 04 months and 06 days, out of total sentence of awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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 279/304-A of IPC, for which no Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 30.09.2004 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 two he is not involved in any other case. 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 MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1899-2011 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Bathinda affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for default mechanism sentence already undergone by April 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 4 Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 25.03.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. ult mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order is modified to the extent that the sentence of and a fine of Rs.1,000/- along with petitioner is reduced to the period of HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment