JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.04.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 18.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.172 dated 17.11.2004 registered under Sections 279/337/338 of IPC at Police Station Subhanpur and the petitioner was sentenced as under :

It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case set up by the prosecution are that on 17.11.2004, complainant-Mukesh Kumar got recorded his statement before ASI Brij Lal to the effect that on 15.11.2004, at about 4:30 PM, when he along with Varinder was going from Jalandhar to Nadala on separate motor-cycles, a Punjab Roadways bus of Patti bearing registration No.PB-12-C-9563 came from the side of Subhanpur, being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit into the motor-cycle of Varinder, who suffered multiple injuries on his head and forehead. Hence, the FIR (supra) was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in registration of the FIR (supra) as the alleged incident has taken place on 15.11.2004, however, the FIR (supra) was registered on 17.11.2004. She further contends that presence of the complainant, at the spot, is doubtful. She submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the petitioner was responsible for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in fact, the incident has taken place due to the negligence of the injured, namely, Varinder Singh. She further submits that no independent passenger from the bus has been examined by the prosecution. Lastly, she submits that as per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual period of 01 month and 13 days, out of total sentence of six months, awarded by learned trial Court and is not involved in any other case.

4. 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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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 i