CRR-1208- IN THE 260 Rajinder Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. dated 14.01.2025 Hoshiarpur, vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated Class, Hoshiarpur 452/ 323/ 325 IPC upheld. 2. judgment of conviction dated below: Offence Section 452 1 -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Rajinder Singh VERSUS State of Punjab HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH Mr. K.S. Saini, Advocate for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Hoshiarpur, in FIR No.33 dated 01.04. 452/ 323/ 325 IPC at Police Station Chabbewal, Hoshiarpur The petitioner was convicted by the learned Court below vide judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2017 and was sentenced as mentioned Offence 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs. and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for 15 days. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1208-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 05, 2025 ..... Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist .04.2014 registered under Sections Chabbewal, Hoshiarpur, have been The petitioner was convicted by the learned Court below vide and was sentenced as mentioned Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner .....Respondent This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, , vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist r Sections , have been The petitioner was convicted by the learned Court below vide and was sentenced as mentioned PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1208- Section 323 Section 325 2.1. 3. assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by has already undergone a period of involved in any other criminal activity. 4. petitioner on the ground that the learned trial Court has pas reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court and as such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. 5. the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections punishment has been prescribed. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has already undergone the total sentence of the instant case. Since there was no minimum punishment prescribed under 2 -2025 (O&M) 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/ in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple days. 325 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs. and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by has already undergone a period of 06 month involved in any other criminal activity. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the learned trial Court has pas reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court and as such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. Having heard learned counsel for the the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 452, 323 and 325 of punishment has been prescribed. As per the custody certificate, the s not involved in any other case and has already undergone the total sentence of 06 months and 21 days, out of total sentence of the instant case. Since there was no minimum punishment prescribed under Rigorous imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further simple imprisonment for 7 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2017 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as he months and 21 days and is not , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court and as such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was 452, 323 and 325 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per the custody certificate, the s not involved in any other case and has already undergone the days, out of total sentence of 02 years, in the instant case. Since there was no minimum punishment prescribed under Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of the petitioner, as he days and is not , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the sed a well- reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per the custody certificate, the s not involved in any other case and has already undergone the , in the instant case. Since there was no minimum punishment prescribed under PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1208- Sections 452, 323 and 325 of be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble 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 case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the 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 whimsical 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. 7. Ravada Sasikala Vs. 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 noticing the nature of the crime, the manner, 3 -2025 (O&M) 452, 323 and 325 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. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. 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 maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the 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 Further, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon' Ravada Sasikala Vs. 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 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 urt 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. Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257, a 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, the 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 ly. 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 Judge Bench of 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 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 in which the crime was committed and urt is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is , a 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 each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the 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 ly. 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 ble Supreme Court in , 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 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 in which the crime was committed and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1208- conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 8. Court below indicates no perversi correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum already undergone by the petitioner. 9. the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 11 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) (ii) 11. not required in any other case. 4 -2025 (O&M) 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 Court below indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum already undergone by the petitioner. The FIR in the present case was registered on the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- The judgment dated 14.01.2025 Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2017 The order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from jail, if not required in any other case. conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned ty in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence The FIR in the present case was registered on 01.04.2014 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the 14.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, affirming the 06.02.2017 is upheld. The order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 year and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the the period of sentence already The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from jail, if conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned ty in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he of sentence and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than abiding Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the passed by the learned the The order of sentence is modified to the extent that the years and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the the period of sentence already The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith from jail, if PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1208- 12. stand disposed of. stand disposed of. August 05, 2025 P.C 5 -2025 (O&M) All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document