241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Kuldeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Abohar, in FIR No.79 dated 12.04.2006 registered under Sections 279/337/338/427 of IPC, registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 05.11.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 01.02.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR (supra). He further submits that the medical officer, who treated the injured, has not been examined by the prosecution and even no opinion of any medical officer regarding the grievous injury has been received. Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction 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 the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 03 months and 14 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

6. 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 279/338 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone a period of 03 months and 14 days in custody out of total sentence of 02 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279/338 of 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.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, 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.

8. Furth