Gurmeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR No. 2290-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.02.2025 Gurmeet Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in FIR No.82 dated 29.10.2012 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304-A IPC at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana, have been upheld. 2.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 337, 427 and 304A IPC and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default mechanism.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2012, Naginder Kumar Singh, along with his wife Pooja Rani and brother-in-law Tinku

Kumar, was travelling on an Aterno scooter bearing No.PB-10BV-3968 from Metro Road towards Bachan Colony. At around 11:00 pm, when they reached near Jamalpur Main Chowk on Chandigarh Road, an Indica car coming from Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana, collided with their scooter due to the driver's rash and negligent driving. As a result, Naginder sustained injuries on his right foot and head, while Pooja suffered head injuries and lost consciousness. Tinku, who was riding pillion, also sustained injuries on his left foot and head. People gathered at the spot and assisted the victims in moving to the side of the road. Rajesh Kumar, Naginder's brother-in-law, arrived at the spot and took them to Apollo Hospital. While Naginder was discharged, Pooja and Tinku remained hospitalized. Later, Naginder learned that the Indica car involved in the accident was registered as PB-10BP-0409 and the same was driven by Gurmeet Singh. He subsequently recorded his statement before the police and the FIR (supra) has been registered against the accused.

4.

Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2018 by the learned trial Court, which have also been upheld by learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2024. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2024 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 03 months and 21 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

6.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner, as the 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.

7.

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

8.

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. 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. 9.

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. 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.

10.

The FIR in the present case was lodged on 29.10.2012 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last 12 years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate dated 18.02.2025, the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has undergone total sentence of 03 months and 21 days, out of total sentence of 01 year in the instant case.

11.

Accordingly, 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. 12.

Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2018 is upheld, however, the order of sentence of even date, is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court is increased to Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine before the learned trial Court within 01 month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month. 13.

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 19.02.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No