Lucky Singh @ Lakhi v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR-948-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Lucky Singh @ Lakhi ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.2.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, in FIR No.65 dated 20.04.2017 registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 427 IPC at Police Station Canal Colony, Bathinda, have been modified.

2.

The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court under Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 427 IPC, however, in the appeal, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 337 and 427 IPC and thereafter, he was sentenced as follows:

Offence Sentence Section 279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

Section 304-A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

A total fine of Rs.2,500/- along with default mechanism remained intact against the petitioner and it was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2020 on merits and restricts his 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 01 month and 25 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 wellreasoned 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 279 and 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving causing the death of a person, 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 01 month and 25 days out of total sentence of 02 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279 and 304-A 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.

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.

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 he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

9.

The FIR in the present case was registered on 20.04.2017 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last about 08 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. 10.

Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, modifying the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2019 is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02

years 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 13.05.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No