Dat SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CRR-1332- -2025 (O&M) 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 291 Singh Jasvir Singh State of Punja f Punjab &M) CRR-1332-2025 (O&M) , 2025 Date of Decision: August 05, 2025 Dat SUS VERSUS itioner ..... Petitioner .....Responde pondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. A.S Dhaliwal, Advocate for te for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punja **** , Punjab. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. This revision petition has been gment been preferred against the judgment dated 25.02 25.02.2025 passed by the learned A
Legal Reasoning
Sri rned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahi ar Sahib, vide which judgment of conv um of f conviction and order on quantum of sentence date ce dated 01.06.2017 passed by the lea dicial the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, rate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in FIR No. stered R No.39 dated 24.04.2016 registered under Section ections 304-A/279 of IPC at Police St Sahib, lice Station Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib have been up een upheld. 2. The petitioner was convicted by vide cted by the learned Court below vide judgment of nt of conviction dated 01.06.2017 an tioned and was sentenced as mentioned below: Offence O Sentence Section 304 304-A of IPC Rigorous impris 02 years and to and in default further undergo for 10 days. imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- efault of payment of fine, to ndergo simple imprisonment PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1332- -2025 (O&M) 2 Section 279 279 IPC Rigorous impris six months and and in default o further undergo for 10 days. imprisonment for a period of and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- fault of payment of fine, to dergo Rigorous imprisonment 2.1. Both the sentences were ordered rdered to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti is not petitioner contends that he is not assailing the g the impugned judgment of convicti merits onviction dated 01.06.2017 on merits and restricts stricts his prayer qua modification m of cation of the order on quantum of sentence, to t ce, to that of the sentence already und as he dy undergone by the petitioner, as he has already u eady undergone a period of 05 month olved onths and 8 days and is not involved in any other c other criminal activity. 4. Per contra, learned State coun of the e counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on ner on the ground that the learned t well- rned trial Court has passed a well reasoned jud ed judgment based on correct appreci le on ppreciation of evidence available on record, which , which has also been upheld by the l Court y the learned Lower Appellate Court and as such, t such, the petitioner does not deserve a erve any leniency. 5. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record w ord with their able assistance, it tra r was it transpires that the petitioner was convicted un ted under Sections 304-A and 279 imum 279 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment ment has been prescribed. As per , the s per the custody certificate, the petitioner is ner is not involved in any other case ne the r case and has already undergone the total sentence ntence of 05 months and 8 days, out o , in s, out of total sentence of 02 years, in the instant ca tant case. Since there was no minimum under inimum punishment prescribed under PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1332- -2025 (O&M) 3 Sections 304 304-A and 279 of IPC, this Court is uld be ourt is of the opinion that it would be in the interes interest of justice, if the sentence awar duced e awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period eriod already undergone by him. 6. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. Sta , a . State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three-Judge B udge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme arding reme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is ence is not a mere formality in crimin m and criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum te um term is prescribed by the statute iod of statute with regard to the period of sentence, a d ce, a discretionary element is vested in f each sted in the Court. Background of each case, which i hich includes factors like gravity of th which y of the offence, the manner, in which the offence i ence is committed, age of the accuse while accused, should be considered, while determining ining the quantum of sentence and th used and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or rily or whimsically. After assessing roper sessing all relevant factors, proper sentence shou ce should be awarded bearing in mind nality mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the re the sentence is neither excessively h oss as ively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 7. Further, a two-Judge Bench of urt in ch of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasik Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 at the 017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of tion of sentence also serves a social p errent ocial purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making th ing the accused realise the damage ca m, but age caused not only to the victim, but also to the s the society at large. The law in t d that in this regard is well settled that opportunities unities of reformation must be grante to be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by ed by evaluating all attending circums ticing ircumstances of each case by noticing the nature of ure of the crime, the manner, in whic d and which the crime was committed and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1332- -2025 (O&M) 4 conduct of th t of the accused to strike a balance b w and ance between the efficacy of law and the chances o nces of reformation of the accused. 8. A perusal of the judgment of co arned t of conviction passed by the learned Court below below indicates no perversity in its fin ed on s findings and the same is based on correct appre appreciation of evidence available on or the ble on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has ner has not assailed the judgment of her he nt of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted stricted his prayer only qua modific ence odification of quantum of sentence already under undergone by the petitioner. 9. The FIR in the present case wa and se was registered on 24.04.2016 and the petitioner itioner has been suffering the agony of ony of trial since the last more than than 9 years. Since Since his conviction, the petitioner biding tioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and de and desires to live a peaceful life. 10. Conseq Consequently, the present revision p in the ision petition is disposed of in the following ter ing terms:- (i) The judgment dated 25.02.2 rned .02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri the Sri Muktsar Sahib, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 01 01.06.2017 is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence is mo the modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonm isonment for a period of 02 year ears and fine along with default the ault mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the eady the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11. The petitioner is directed to be jail, if to be released forthwith from jail, if not required i uired in any other case. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1332- -2025 (O&M) 5 12. All the pending miscellaneous a ll also eous application(s), if any, shall also stand dispose isposed of. August 05, 2 P.C , 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable king/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ortable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.06 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document