206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DALJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This dated 11.11.2013 which, judgment of conviction 04.07.2012 passed by upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.148 dated 08.12.2005 registered under Sections 279/304 sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 279 IPC 304-A of IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DALJIT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Manna Singh, Advocate for Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 11.11.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, judgment of conviction and order on passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.148 dated 08.12.2005 registered under Sections 279/304-A of IPC at Police Station Julkan and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for six month Rs.500/ fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days. RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-60-2014 Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.148 dated 08.12.2005 registered under A of IPC at Police Station Julkan and the petitioner was Sentence RI for six months and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 RI for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-60-2014 It was ordered that both 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 certificate, the petitioner has undergone out of total sentence of involved in any other case. 3. Per contra petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on r 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 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 maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a disc 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 dis 2 fine, to further undergo SI for one month. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 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 a period of out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court and involved in any other case. Per contra, learned State counsel as learned trial Court has passed a well correct appreciation of evidence available on r 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 offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this dis fine, to further undergo SI for one It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.11.2013 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 04 months and 02 days, ded by learned trial Court and is not 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 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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 maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of retionary 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 MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-60-2014 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 le 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 purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the 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 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 trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioner was convicted under Sections minimum punishme petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 8. 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 a period of 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 le 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 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 trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. 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 last conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner undergone a period of 04 months and 02 days, out of total sentence of 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, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by 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 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 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 08.12.2005 and the for the last more than 19 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of one MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-60-2014 year, awarded by learned trial Court and 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, this Court is of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Patiala affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for awarded to the undergone by him May 12, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 4 awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. 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 11.11.2013 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of 04.07.2012 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for one year and fine along with default mec awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already him. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable he is not involved in any other case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of is modified to the extent that the sentence of along with default mechanism petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.13 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment