306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.03.2025 SURINDER ...APPELLANT V/S STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

2. CRA-S-903-SB-2005 HARI RAM ...APPELLANT V/S STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

3. CRA-S-1555-SB-2005 SOMBIR ...APPELLANT V/S STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

4. CRA-S-2100-SB-2005 KULDEEP ...APPELLANT V/S STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the appellants (amicus curiae)

(CRA-S-572-SB-2005; CRA-S-1555-SB-2005 & CRA-S-2100-SB-2005)

Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate for the appellant.

(in CRA-S-903-SB-2005)

Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of all the above-mentioned appeals as all are arising from the same FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRA-S-572-SB-2005 titled as Surinder vs. State of Haryana.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani in case stemming from FIR No.217 dated 16.06.2003 registered under Sections 489-

A, B, C, D IPC.

3. The appellants were sentenced as under:

4. Learned counsel(s) for the appellants contend that they are not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2007 on merits and restrict their prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellants. As per their custody certificates, appellant-Surinder has undergone actual period of 02 months and 10 days; appellant-Hari Ram has undergone actual period of 06 months and 27 days; appellant-Sombir has undergone actual period of 06 months and 22 days and appellant-Kuldeep has undergone actual period of 02 years, 06 months and 01 day and they are not involved in any other case.

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

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover,