CRR-1258-2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 Kuldip v. CRR-1258-2007
Case Details
CRR-1258-2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 Kuldip Singh Veero and another Versus CRR-1258-2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.05.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vicky Sharma, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 22.03.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, in a complaint filed under Sections 307, 325, 323, 148, 149 IPC, have been upheld. 2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Court below vide judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2006 and was sentenced as follows: Offence Section 323 IPC Section 452 IPC Section 148 IPC MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.22 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months. CRR-1258-2007 2 All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2007 on merits and restricts the prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as he has already undergone a period of 24 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity. 4. Per contra, 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. 5. 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 323, 452, 148 IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 24 days out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323, 452, 148 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. MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.22 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRR-1258-2007 3 6. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three-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, 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 lenient. 7. Further, a two-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 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 conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.22 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRR-1258-2007 4 8. 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 restricts the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 9. The complaint in the present case was registered on 17.10.1997 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last 27 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10.
Decision
Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 20.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2006 is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and fine along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 20.05.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.05.22 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh