← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/3088/2009disposed of

Jit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-04-28Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar4 pages

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:28.04.2025 Jit Singh .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

**** Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral) 1.

This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide which, judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa has been modified by setting aside his conviction under Section 148 IPC and conviction under Section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC and Section 323 IPC stand converted to Sections 325 and 323 IPC, in case stemming from FIR No.45 dated 23.05.1999 registered under Sections 323 and 325 IPC at Police Station Bareta, Mansa and the petitioner was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence 325 IPC RI for one year 323 IPC RI for three months and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not

assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.10.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge(ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa 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 a period of 01 month and 26 days, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court and is not involved in any other case.

3.

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 upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5.

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 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. 6.

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. 7.

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Appellate 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 325 and 323 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. 8.

The FIR in the present case was lodged on 23.05.1999 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial for the last more than 25 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 01 month and 26 days, out of total sentence of one year, awarded by learned trial Court and he is not involved in any other case.

9.

Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 325/323 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.

10.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa modifying the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 20.09.2006 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 11.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

28.04.2025 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No