280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 26.09.2011 which, judgment of conviction sentence dated Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.13 dated 29.01.2004 registered under Sections 382/34 of IPC at Police Station Raman and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 382 IPC 341 IPC It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURJIT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 26.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2009 17.08.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.13 dated 29.01.2004 registered under Sections 382/34 of IPC at Police Station Raman and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for Rs.1,000/ fine, further undergo SI for 15 days. RI for Rs.200/ fine, further undergo SI for 03 days. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2567-2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide dated 17.08.2009 and order on quantum of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.13 dated 29.01.2004 registered under Sections 382/34 of IPC at Police Station Raman and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Sentence RI for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo SI for 15 days. RI for one month and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo SI for 03 days. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. MANISHA 2025.04.23 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2567-2011 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. judgment dated 26.09.2011, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from two years to one and half years under Section 382 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, the petitioner has undergone out of total sentence of Appellate Court 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 lear 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 awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in crimin 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 2011 (O & M) 2 Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The learned lower Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2011, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from two years to one and half years under Section 382 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner mpugned judgment of conviction 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 one and half years, Appellate Court and is not 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 Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional The learned lower Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2011, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from two years to one and half years under Section 382 of IPC. petitioner contends that he is not mpugned judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2011 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. As per his custody period of 06 months and 19 days, one and half years, awarded by learned lower 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 correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been Court and as such, he does not deserve ned 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 al 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 MANISHA 2025.04.23 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2567-2011 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 min 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. 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 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 th 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 on correct appreciation of evidence available on re 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 9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioner has been suffering the agony of Since his conviction, the 2011 (O & M) 3 ffence 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 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 but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities ion 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. 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 re petitioner was convicted under Sections 382/341 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 conviction, the petitioner has grown into law ffence 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 d 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, 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 ion 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 e 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 382/341 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 29.01.2004 and the for the last more than 21 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and MANISHA 2025.04.23 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2567-2011 desires to live a peaceful life. undergone a period of 06 half years, awarded by learned other case. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 341/382 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 judgment dated Bathinda affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated Section 382 of IPC by learned lower Appellate judgment, is modified to the extent that the sentence of for one and half years awarded to the undergone by him 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. April 22, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 (O & M) 4 to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petiti undergone a period of 06 months and 19 days, out of total sentence awarded by learned Appellate Court and 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 already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 26.09.2011 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 17.08.2009, which was reduced to one and half years under Section 382 of IPC by learned lower Appellate is modified to the extent that the sentence of one and half years and a fine of Rs.1,200/- awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of one and Court and he is not involved in any 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 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order 17.08.2009, which was reduced to one and half years under Section 382 of IPC by learned lower Appellate Court vide the impugned is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment along with default mechanism petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.23 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment