226-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BINDER SINGH @ KAIRON STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the complainant. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 17.08.2011 which, judgment of conviction 24.02.2010 passed by been upheld, qua the petitioner, 24.06.2000 registered under Sections Station Lambra, Jalandhar as under :- Offence under Section(s) 326 IPC 324 IPC 324/34 IPC It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 24.06.2000, complainant Pal Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he along with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BINDER SINGH @ KAIRON V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate as amicus curiae Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the complainant. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 17.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction and order on passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, , qua the petitioner, in case stemming from FIR No. registered under Sections 326/324/323/506/427/34 Lambra, Jalandhar have been upheld and the petitioner was sentenced Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/ of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for 01 year. RI for 01 year. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Brief facts of the present case are that on 24.06.2000, complainant Pal Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he along with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1907-2011 Date of decision: 28.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR amicus curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the complainant. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, have in case stemming from FIR No.334 dated 326/324/323/506/427/34 of IPC at Police and the petitioner was sentenced with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Brief facts of the present case are that on 24.06.2000, complainant Pal Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he along with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM, MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1907-2011 when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh Manjit Singh @ Jitti and Sucha Singh and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When complainant and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh and Sewa Ram away from the spot. Hence, the FIR ( 3. The petitioner conviction and order of sentence Court, which ha judgment dated 4. Learned injury, on the basis of which, the petitioner has been convicted, is on the of right hand of the complainant, the indicates that it is a self have fallen into gra the fact that the aforementioned injury has been declared grievous in nature and there is a delay of 18 hours in registration of FIR ( the case set up by the prosecution is hig that the injury was inflicted by the injured, who was sitting in the car. she submits that as actual period of learned trial Court 5. Per contra petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well 2011 2 when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh Manjit Singh @ Jitti both armed with kirpan, Makhan Singh and Sucha Singh empty handed came in their tractor and stopped their passage and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When omplainant and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh and Sewa Ram came at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away from the spot. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced and order of sentence dated 24.02.2010 which have also been upheld by learned 17.08.2011. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioner on the basis of which, the petitioner has been convicted, is on the of the complainant, the nature and extent of indicates that it is a self-suffered injury. Further, have fallen into grave error by convicting the petitioner, only on the basis of the fact that the aforementioned injury has been declared grievous in nature and there is a delay of 18 hours in registration of FIR ( the case set up by the prosecution is highly improbable, as per the allegation that the injury was inflicted by the injured, who was sitting in the car. she submits that as per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of 27 days, out of total sentence of learned trial Court and is not involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh @ Karion (petitioner herein), , Makhan Singh armed with datar came in their tractor and stopped their passage and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When omplainant and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh came at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled ) was registered. and sentenced vide judgment of dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned trial learned lower Appellate Court vide petitioner inter alia contends the on the basis of which, the petitioner has been convicted, is on the finger nature and extent of which clearly . Further, the learned Courts below ve error by convicting the petitioner, only on the basis of the fact that the aforementioned injury has been declared grievous in nature and there is a delay of 18 hours in registration of FIR (supra). Furthermore, hly improbable, as per the allegation that the injury was inflicted by the injured, who was sitting in the car. Lastly, per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by and is not involved in any other case. State counsel opposes the prayer of the as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1907-2011 correct appreciation of evidence upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires th convicted under Sections 326/324/34 IPC and a has already undergone an actual years, in the instant case 7. 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. 8. 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 2011 3 correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires th convicted under Sections 326/324/34 IPC and as per has already undergone an actual period of 27 days, out of total sentence of two years, in the instant case. The petitioner is not involved in any other cas 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 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 available on record, which has also been Court and as such, he does not deserve Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was s per his custody certificate, he period of 27 days, out of total sentence of two is not involved in any other case. 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 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 MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1907-2011 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. 9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates correct appreciation of evidence available on record. (supra) was lodged on agony of trial for into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sen period already undergone by 11. Consequently, the present judgment dated Jalandhar, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for mechanism awarded to the already undergone by 12. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to remuneration to March 28, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 4 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. ) was lodged on 24.06.2000 and the petitioner agony of trial for last more than 24 years. Since abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 17.08.2011 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 24.02.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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. However, the FIR petitioner has been suffering the years. Since his conviction, he has grown abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the tence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the 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.500/- along with default petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay as per rules. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment