241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-74-2012 Date of decision: 16.05.2025 Mukhtiar Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2009 and order of sentence dated 01.09.2009 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, in FIR No.106 dated 24.08.2004 registered under Sections 326/325/324 of IPC, registered at Police Station Ghagga, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1 to 3 have died during the pendency of the present revision petition and as such, the present revision petition qua petitioners No.1 to 3 stands abated. 3. In view of the above, the present revision petition stands abated qua petitioners No.1 to 3. 4. The petitioner No.4, namely, Darshan Singh, was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Neha 2025.05.23 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-74-2012 -2- Offence Sentence Section 326 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which, rigorous imprisonment for one month. Section 326/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which, rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. Sections 325/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.400/- in default of which, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Sections 323/34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default of which, rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 27.08.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 15.12.2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.4 inter alia contends that petitioner No.4 has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is delay of 42 hours in lodging the FIR (supra). Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by petitioner No.4, as petitioner No.4 has already undergone a total period of 08 months and 03 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner No.4 is not involved in any other case. Neha 2025.05.23 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-74-2012 -3- 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 326/325/324 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, petitioner No.4 has already undergone a period of 08 months and 03 days in custody out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 326/325/324 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to petitioner No.4 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, 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 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. 10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. 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 Neha 2025.05.23 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-74-2012 -4- 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. 11. 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. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 24.08.2004 and petitioner No.4 has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 20 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law- abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 12. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, is upheld and sentence of 03 years and fine awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by petitioner No.4 . 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 16.05.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.05.23 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document