IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-347-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 SATYADEV PANDEY ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG Haryana.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-5818-2026

1. Instant application has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in filing the revision petition.

2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application and in the interest of justice, application is allowed and delay of 75 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application is disposed of accordingly.

Main Case

1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2023 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra in case FIR No.425 dated 20.10.2017 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC registered at Police Station K.U.K., District Kurukshetra.

2. Brief background of the case is that an alleged road accident took place on 19.10.2017 wherein the petitioner was alleged to be driving a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of one Sanjeev Kumar. Accordingly, on the basis of statement of Sanjay Kumar, brother of the deceased the present FIR was got registered against the petitioner. Upon trial, vide judgment and order of sentence dated dated 05.08.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, who vide judgment dated 25.08.2025 upheld the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not assailing the conviction of the petitioner 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 06 months, 05 days out of the substantial sentence of one year.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Supreme Court (Three-Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused’s age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient.

8. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation.

9. A careful review of the conviction rendered by the learned Appellate Court reveals no perversity;