249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA TARSEM SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 23.01.2014 judgment of conviction Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur of sentence dated 16.01.2013 was modified, dated 23.01.2008 registered under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana and the petitioners were sentenced Appellate Court Name of the petitioner(s) Tarsem Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TARSEM SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 23.01.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2013 Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur has been upheld, dated 16.01.2013 was modified, in case stemming from FIR No.09 dated 23.01.2008 registered under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana and the petitioners were sentenced t as under : Name of the Offence under Section(s) 324 IPC 326 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-496-2014 Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate has been preferred against the judgment learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, dated 16.01.2013 passed by learned Judicial been upheld, however, order on quantum in case stemming from FIR No.09 dated 23.01.2008 registered under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana and the petitioners were sentenced by learned Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for one and half years. RI for one and half years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-496-2014 Hardev Kaur It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificates, petitioner days, out of total sentence of Appellate Court and 3. Per contra petitioners as learned trial Court has passed a well on correct appreciation of evidence available on record upheld by the learned lower Appellat any leniency. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. 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 2 323 read with Section IPC 324 read with Section 34 IPC 326 read with Section 34 IPC 323 of IPC It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned judgment of conviction prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. As per the custody certificates, petitioners have undergone actual period of 02 months and 1 out of total sentence of one and half years, awarded by learned Court and are not involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well on 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 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 3 read with Section 34 RI for six months. 324 read with Section 34 RI for one and half years. 326 read with Section 34 RI for one and half years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. RI for six months. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2014 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to petitioners. As per the custody actual period of 02 months and 18 years, awarded by learned lower 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, they do not deserve I have heard learned 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 sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-496-2014 maximum term is prescr 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 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. 6. 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 pur 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 ex 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. 7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court below indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convict minimum punishment has been prescribed. petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 3 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 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 ntence 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 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be ex 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 the accused. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Sections 324/326/32 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. ibed 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 ntence 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 pose 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 efficacy of law and the chances of A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. It transpires that the 324/326/323/34 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. MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-496-2014 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have years. Since their citizens and desi petitioners have remission out of total sentence of Court and are not involved in any other case. 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner namely Tarsem Singh and Hardev Kaur undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Hoshiarpur affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for default mechanism sentence already undergone by May 05, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 4 The FIR in the present case was lodged on s have been suffering the agony of trial their conviction, the petitioners have and desire to live a peaceful life. As per s have undergone a period of 02 months and out of total sentence of one and half years, not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner namely Tarsem Singh and Hardev Kaur is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 23.01.2014 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, of sentence dated 23.01.2014 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. default mechanism awarded to the petitioners dy undergone by them. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable The FIR in the present case was lodged on 23.01.2008 and the trial for the last more than 17 s have grown into law-abiding As per their custody certificate, the months and 28 days, including years, awarded by learned trial 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 petitioners, is reduced to the period already 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.2,000/- along with s is reduced to the period of HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.13 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment