249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SANGEETA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision dated 11.09.2019 vide which, judgment of conviction sentence dated Faridabad in case stemming from FIR No. under Sections 381 and 34 of IPC upheld and the petitioners were sentenced to undergo RI for one year e with a fine of Rs.500/ 381/34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the certificate, both the petitioners have undergone actual period of 03 months and 12 days, out of total sentence of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SANGEETA AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment 11.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, judgment of conviction dated 04.02.2017 07.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, in case stemming from FIR No.236 381 and 34 of IPC at Police Station and the petitioners were sentenced to undergo RI for one year e with a fine of Rs.500/- each, along with default mechanism under Sections Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned judgment of conviction prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners both the petitioners have undergone actual period of 03 months and out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2709-2019 (O & M) Date of decision: 27.03.2025 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. has been preferred against the judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, 04.02.2017 and order on quantum of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, 236 dated 24.09.2013 registered at Police Station NIT Faridabad have been and the petitioners were sentenced to undergo RI for one year each along with default mechanism under Sections petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.09.2019 on merits odification of the order on quantum of sentence to petitioners. As per their custody both the petitioners have undergone actual period of 03 months and , awarded by learned trial Court and MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2709-2019 they are not involved in any other case. 3. Per contra petitioners as learned trial Court has passed a well on correct appreciation of evidence a 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 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 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 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 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 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 2019 (O & M) 2 not involved in any other case. 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 (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 ence, 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 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 State counsel opposes the prayer of the as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based vailable 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 v. State of 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 ence, 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 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 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 MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2709-2019 evaluating all attending circumstances 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. 7. A perusal of the judgment of convic trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. counsel for the merits, rather he has restricted sentence. 8. The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have years. Since their citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. the petitioners have sentence of one year in any other case. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sen period already undergone by 10. Consequently, the present judgment dated affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 07.02.2017 imprisonment for 2019 (O & M) 3 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 convic trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua The FIR in the present case was lodged on petitioners have been suffering the agony of trial their conviction, the petitioners have and desire to live a peaceful life. As per the petitioners have undergone a period of 03 months and one year, awarded by learned trial Court and in any other case. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by them. Consequently, the present petition judgment dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence 07.02.2017 is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment for one year along with default mechanism awarded to the 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. Moreover, learned has not assailed the judgment of conviction on prayer only qua modification of quantum of The FIR in the present case was lodged on 24.09.2013 and the trial for the last more than 11 petitioners have grown into law-abiding As per their custody certificates, both months and 12 days, out of total , awarded by learned trial Court and they are not involved Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the tence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the petition is disposed of and the passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous efault mechanism awarded to the MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-2709-2019 petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. Pending disposed of. March 27, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2019 (O & M) 4 is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by Pending miscellaneous applicatio (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment