206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3135-2014 Date of Decision: April 01, 2025 Mithu Singh …Pe//oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Tehermehakdeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Navjot Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for the pe$$oner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Pe$$oner – Mithu Singh was tried by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind vide judgment dated 10.10.2012 under Sec$ons 283 and 304-A IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.70 of 08.02.2009, registered at Police Sta$on Sadar Jind and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year with fine of `1,000/- with default sentence of 01 month rigorous imprisonment in case of non- payment of fine under Sec$on 304-A IPC and was further sentenced to pay fine of `200/- with default sentence of 01 week rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine under Sec$on 283 IPC. The appeal against the convic$on and sentence was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind, vide his judgment dated 23.08.2014. 2. Against the aforesaid convic$on and sentence, present revision was filed. 3. Today learned counsel for the pe$$oner stated at the outset that pe$$oner does not press this pe$$on against the judgment of convic$on; and that pe$$oner confines his prayer only against the order of sentence. It is submi:ed that the pe$$oner would be sa$sfied, in case he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2009; that pe$$oner was young boy of 24 years at that $me; that he has already undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 29 days and is not involved in any other case and so, they deserve to be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. Sarita Rani 2025.04.02 10:05 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CRR-3135-2014 (O&M) - 2 - 2025:PHHC:043779 5. Learned State counsel has not seriously objected to the aforesaid prayer. 6. The custody cer$ficate placed on record by the respondent- State would reveal that pe$$oner has already undergone actual custody sentence of 07 months and 29 days. It is revealed further that he has no criminal antecedents. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that a>er this convic$on, pe$$oner has been involved in any other case. He was young boy of 24 years of age at the $me of offence, which had taken place way back in 2009 i.e. 16 years back. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of jus$ce, if the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the pe$$oner, instead of sending him behind bars in the company of hardened criminals. 8. Consequently, the present pe$$on is partly accepted. By maintaining the impugned judgment against convic$on, the order of sentence as passed by the Courts below is modified and the pe$$oner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. Disposed of. April 01, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.04.02 10:05 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order