258 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PAL SINGH ALIAS PARAMJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This dated 30.07.2016 which, judgment of conviction 15.01.2013 passed by upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. Sections 279 and sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 279 IPC 304-A IPC 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PAL SINGH ALIAS PARAMJIT SINGH V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 30.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction and order on passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Cl upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.94 dated s 279 and 304-A of IPC at Police Station sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for 06 months RI for one year 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-3350-2016 Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa have been dated 21.08.2009 registered under of IPC at Police Station Bhikhi and the petitioner was Sentence 06 months. one year. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2016 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 MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-3350-2016 certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual and 20 days, out of total sentence of and is not involved in any other case. 3. 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. 4. I have heard lear 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 crimin 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 min 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 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 2016 2 certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual days, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court 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 ffence 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. 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 custody period of 02 months awarded by learned trial Court 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 ned 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 al 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 ffence 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 d 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 MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-3350-2016 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 th reformation of the accused. 7. 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 re petitioner was convicted under Sections minimum punishment has been prescribed. 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 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 the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sent already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Mansa affirming the judgment of sentence dated 2016 3 ion 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 re 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 conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 02 months and 20 days, out of total sentence 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 30.07.2016 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of 15.01.2013 is modified to the extent that the sentence of ion 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 e 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 21.08.2009 and the for the last more than 15 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has days, out of total sentence of one 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 ence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, conviction is upheld, however, the order of is modified to the extent that the sentence of MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-3350-2016 rigorous imprisonment for the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already unde April 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2016 4 imprisonment for one year along with default mechanism petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already unde (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable along with default mechanism awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.22 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment