Crr No. 1015 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Mr. Sunny Namdev, Asst. Advocate General, Haryana. *** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL)

#1. Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition to impugn the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal preferred by them against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/17.02.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Safidon, was dismissed. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/17.02.2024, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Safidon convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:- Offence(s) Period of sentence(s) Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine Convict- Pardeep 323 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC 325 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC 452 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC RI for six months Rs. 500/- RI for one year Rs. 1000/- RI for one year Rs. 1000/- SI for a period of 7 SI for a period of 7 SI for a period of 7 CRR-1015-2026(O&M) & Ors. 2 Convict - Vinod 323 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC 325 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC 452 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC RI for six months Rs. 500/- RI for one year Rs. 1000/- RI for one year Rs. 1000/- SI for a period of 7 SI for a period of 7 SI for a period of 7

#2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 29.04.2018, at about 9:30 a.m., complainant was present at his house. On the same day, a function had been organized by Dilbag @ Rameshwar adjacent to his house. During the function, Pardeep, son of Dilbag (appellant No.1), was hammering a nail into the common wall adjoining the complainant's house. When the complainant objected to the same, one of Pardeep's relatives started abusing him. Upon the complainant raising an objection to such conduct, Vinod and Pardeep (appellants) allegedly attacked him with a hammer. Thereafter, Kuldeep, son of Dilbag, also assaulted the complainant with a lathi, causing him multiple grievous injuries. Complainant was then taken to the Government Hospital, Safidon, by his brother, Nasib, from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, for further treatment. The complainant prayed that appropriate legal action be taken against the accused persons. An inquiry was conducted by the Police and an FIR against the accused was persons registered. Investigation was conducted, witnesses were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and after completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted before the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that in view of the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, he would not CRR-1015-2026(O&M) & Ors. 3 press the instant revision petition on merits and would instead restrict his prayer qua the suspension of sentence only. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence in question pertains to the year 2018 and the petitioners have thus, suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 8 years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been leading the life of a disciplined and peace loving citizen ever since then and are not involved in any other criminal case. A prayer, therefore, has been made that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a lenient view be taken and the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone as the petitioners have undergone period of sentence of more than 03 months and no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind bars again after such long period. As per the custody certificate filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, petitioners have undergone a total sentence of 03 months and 06 days and are not found to be involved in any other criminal case.

#4. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to send the petitioners behind bars at this juncture when admittedly they are fastened with many familial responsibilities. It cannot be overlooked that the ultimate goal of punishment in a modern civilized society is to attempt reformation of the offender. It may not always be necessary in each and every case to incarcerate the offender where he/she has had an opportunity to repent for his/her wrongs. Forgiveness would ensure a better remedy than imprisonment, especially in cases like the one in hand where the accident in question could not be said to have been an intentional act. CRR-1015-2026(O&M) & Ors. 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Ved Prakash vs. State of Haryana’, 1981(1) SCC 447 has also observed that “it is the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant.” It was further observed by the Apex Court “even if the Bar does not help, the Bench must fulfill the humanizing mission of sentencing implicit in such enactments as the Probation of Offenders Act. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 216 while considering the scope of Section 361 Cr.PC and the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act held that such a relief should be granted where the offence was not of very grave nature and in some cases where mens rea was absent as in cases of rash and negligent driving under Section 279 r/w Section 304-A IPC. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through CBI Anti Corruption Branch, Chandigarh vs. Sanjiv Bhalla and another (Crl. Appeal No.1338- 1339/2014) decided on 04.07.2014 while referring to Manjappa's case (supra) observed that the Court desired to convey that an offence punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC being a result of an accident was, therefore, not a grave as there was an absence of mens rea.

#5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, their substantive sentence of 01 year is reduced to the period already undergone by them in the present case. However, there is no modification with regard to fine imposed. CRR-1015-2026(O&M) & Ors. 5 With the aforesaid modifications, the instant revision petition is disposed of.

10.07.2026 Rajan ( Sanjay Vashisth ) Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No