243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURDEEP 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 dated 08.09.2021 which, judgment of conviction 05.04.2016 passed by upheld, in case stemming from FIR No. Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of Moga and the petitioner Name of the petitioner(s) Gurdeep Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 08.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction and order on passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Cla upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.127 dated 325, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station and the petitioners were sentenced as under : Name of the Offence under Section(s) 325 IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC 323 IPC IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1157-2021 Date of decision: 21.05.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide on quantum of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, have been dated 11.08.2012 registered under IPC at Police Station City South sentenced as under : under Section(s) Sentence r/w Section 34 of Imprisonment for three years, with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 month. Imprisonment for six months, with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1157-2021 Gursimranjeet Singh Both 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificates, petiti and 13 days, undergone a period of sentence of three years, any other case. 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 (20 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of 2021 2 Gursimranjeet Singh 325 of IPC 323 IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC Both sentences were ordered to 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 petitioner , petitioner-Gurdeep Singh has undergone including remission, petitioner undergone a period of 07 months and 13 days, including remission three years, awarded by learned trial Cour 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 record with their able assistance. Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (20 ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of month. Imprisonment for three years, with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 month. IPC r/w Section 34 of Imprisonment for six months, with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 01 month. sentences were ordered to run concurrently. petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2021 on merits prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to petitioners. As per the custody has undergone a period of 07 months petitioner-Gursimranjeet Singh has days, including remission out of total awarded by learned trial Court and are not involved in 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 MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1157-2021 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 discretion 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 discretio 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 purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage 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 notic 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 trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. petitioners were minimum punishment petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has 2021 3 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 discretio 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 of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by notic 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 trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. s were convicted under Sections 323/325/34 minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has 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 ary 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 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 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 323/325/34 of IPC, for which no Moreover, learned counsel for the not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1157-2021 restricted his prayer only qua 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have years. Since their citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. petitioner-Gurdeep Singh has undergone a period of 07 months and 13 days, including remission, petitioner 07 months and 1 years, awarded by learned trial Court and ar 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323/325/34 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner already undergone by 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated Moga affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, th sentence dated rigorous imprisonment for mechanism awarded to the already undergone by May 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2021 4 prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. 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 the custody certificates, deep Singh has undergone a period of 07 months and 13 days, including remission, petitioner-Gursimranjeet Singh has undergone a period of 07 months and 13 days, including remission out of total sentence of three years, awarded by learned trial Court and are 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 already undergone by them. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, th 05.04.2016 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for three years each awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable quantum of sentence. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 11.08.2012 and the trial for the last more than 12 s have grown into law-abiding As per the custody certificates, deep Singh has undergone a period of 07 months and 13 days, Gursimranjeet Singh has undergone a period of days, including remission out of total sentence of three 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 petitioners is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the passed by 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 three years each and fine along with default is reduced to the period of sentence HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.26 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment