249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.05.2025 TARSEM SINGH AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.01.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which, judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur has been upheld, however, order on quantum of sentence dated 16.01.2013 was modified, in case stemming from FIR No.09 dated 23.01.2008 registered under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana and the petitioners were sentenced by learned Appellate Court as under :

It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2014 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. As per the custody certificates, petitioners have undergone actual period of 02 months and 18 days, out of total sentence of one and half years, awarded by learned lower Appellate Court and are not involved in any other case.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners 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, they do not deserve any leniency.

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

5. 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.

6. 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 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 the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

7. A per