119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1601-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 04.07.2025 Inderjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, in FIR No.143 dated 11.12.2010 registered under Sections 279/304-A/338/427 of IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Offence Sentence Section 279 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500 in default, further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Section 427 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. Section 304-A Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1601-2025 -2- 3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 07.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 05.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are material contradictions in the testimonies. Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 28 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/427/304-A of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone a period of 28 days in custody out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279/427/304-A of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1601-2025 -3- interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, 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 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. 8. Further, 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 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 reformation of the accused. MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1601-2025 -4- 9. 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. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 11.12.2010 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 14 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, is upheld and sentence of 01 year and fine awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 11. The petitioner be released from the custody forthwith if he is not required in any other case. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 04.07.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANISHA 2025.07.04 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment