Tek Singh State of Punja f Punjab SUS v. itioner
Case Details
1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 201 CRR-609-2008(O&M) , 2025 Date of Decision : July 30, 2025 Gurtej Singh Singh @ Tek Singh State of Punja f Punjab SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responde pondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. B.S Bhalla, Advocates for th s for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punja **** , Punjab. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been f dated been filed against the judgment dated 20.03.2008 008 passed by the learned Addit Moga, Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby, the the appeal filed by the petitio nt of petitioner against the judgment of conviction an tion and order of sentence dated 08. arned ed 08.08.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Mag l Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, has been FIR s been modified, in case bearing FIR No.47 dated ated 18.06.2004 under Sections 326 tation ns 326, 324, 323 IPC Police Station Mehna, Dist , District Moga and the petitioner w d trial oner was sentenced by learned trial Court as unde s under : e under Section(s) Offence und 326 IPC 323 IPC 323 IPC 324 IPC PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Sente Sentence ne of RI for 1-1/2 years with a fine of RI fo ent of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of Rs.15 r one fine further undergo RI for one fine month. month ne of RI for six months with a fine of RI fo ent of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of Rs.20 fine RI for 15 days. fine R ne of RI for six months with a fine of RI fo ent of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of Rs.20 fine R fine RI for 15 days. ne of RI for one year with a fine of RI fo ent of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of Rs.50 2 All the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently fine RI for one month. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga and was awarded imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months under Section 326 of IPC, however, the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.03.2008, has altered the sentence from ‘Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC’ with six months rigorous imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2008 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 per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of 15 days, out of total sentence of 1-1/2 years awarded by learned trial Court and is not involved in any other case. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has also been altered by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. In Deo Narain Mandal v. 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 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. 7. 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 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. 8. 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 petitioner was convicted under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, 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. 9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 18.06.2004 and the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial for the last about 21 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone a period of 15 days and out of total sentence of 1-1/2 years awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case. 10. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 323 and 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 08.08.2006 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs.200/- along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)
Decision
disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE July 30, 2025 PC Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document