238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SUKHCHAIN SINGH @ GORI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 14.03.2011 vide which, judgment of conviction 08.11.2010 passed by upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. Sections 279/304 was sentenced by learned trial Court Offence under Section(s) 279 IPC 304-A IPC It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The petitioner conviction and order of sentence IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUKHCHAIN SINGH @ GORI V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 14.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.211 dated 279/304-A of IPC at Police Station Mallanwala by learned trial Court as under :- Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for Rs.1,000/ fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. RI for Rs.2,000/ fine, to undergo RI for 02 months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-680-2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, and order on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira have been dated 11.12.2003 registered under Mallanwala and the petitioner Sentence I for 06 months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 02 months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. preferred an appeal against the judgment of 08.11.2010 passed by learned trial MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-680-2011 Court, which was also dismissed judgment dated 304-A IPC was reduced to one year and six months. 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 days, out of total sentence of lower Appellate 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 learn 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 crimina 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 2011 (O & M) 2 was also dismissed by learned 14.03.2011. However, sentence of two years under Section was reduced to one year and six months. 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 certificate, the petitioner has undergone custody days, out of total sentence of one year and six months lower 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 fence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used learned lower Appellate Court vide 14.03.2011. However, sentence of two years under Section was reduced to one year and six months. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.03.2011 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 custody period of 03 month and 27 one year and six months, awarded by learned 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 correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been Court and as such, he does not deserve ed 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 l 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 fence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-680-2011 arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind 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 the 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 rec petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304 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 desires to live a peaceful life. undergone custody 2011 (O & M) 3 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 on 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 rec 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 custody period of 03 months and 27 arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence 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 on 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 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 petitioner was convicted under Sections 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 11.12.2003 and the for the last more than 21 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has 27 days, out of total sentence of MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-680-2011 one and half years, involved in any other case. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 304-A/279 of IPC of justice, if the sen already undergone by 11. Consequently, the present judgment dated Ferozepur, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for mechanism awarded to the already undergone by 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2011 (O & M) 4 years, awarded by learned lower Appellate involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections A/279 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 14.03.2011 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 08.11.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for one year and six months and fine awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable lower Appellate Court and he is not Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections , this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest tence 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 is modified to the extent that the sentence of one year and six months and fine along with default petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment