IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 19.12.2025

MOHD. SHAHJAHAN

... Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.

****

Present: Dr. (Mr.) R.K. Singla, Advocate

(Amicus Curiae) for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2007

and order of sentence dated 08.12.2007 passed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad in case FIR No.195 dated 05.04.2006 under Section 307 of IPC,

registered at Police Station City Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2006, the appellant had given knife blows on the neck and stomach of the complainant and thereby caused serious and fatal injuries to her. After recording the statement of complainant, the abovementioned FIR was registered on 05.04.2006 against the appellant. The appellant was arrested in the present case, and after completion of formal investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court for commencement of trial. Pursuant thereto, the appellant was tried in the Court and vide judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2007 passed by the then Addl. Sessions

Judge, Faridabad, the appellant was convicted and vide order on sentence dated 08.12.2007, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2007 on merits, but restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 08.12.2007, to the period as already undergone by the appellant, as he has already undergone a sentence of 02 years, 06 months and 19 days including remissions out of the total sentence of 06 years. He further prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2007, hence, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant by way of filing of custody certificate of the appellant dated 18.12.2025 and submits that the Court below has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, he does not refute the fact that the appellant is not involved in any other case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The appellant has been convicted for causing serious and lethal injury to the complainant with sharp edged weapon, punishable under Section 307 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed.

Furthermore, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2007 and the appellant has already faced the rigors of the prosecution for about two decades.

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held 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 that the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.

8. Further, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realize the damage caused