219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 RESHAM SINGH ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Aakanksha, Advocate for Mr. Lal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.

***

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 29.10.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, have been upheld and petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:

It was ordered that all sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner was involved in one more case, in which he has been acquitted by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2019. Copy of the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, in FIR No. 10 dated 13.02.2016 registered under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of IPC, at Police Station Sadar Mansa, is produced in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 29.10.2015 to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a period of 04 months and 16 days including remission, and not involved in any other case.

3. 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 which has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other case.

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

5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State 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 im- position of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by mak- ing 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 re- formation 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 perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rath