IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (203) CRR-2015-2008 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 BUTA SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

(Amicus Curiae)

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

*****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 16.04.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul in case bearing FIR No.61 dated 19.07.2000 registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC at Police Station Dialpura have been upheld.

2. The petitioner was sentenced as under:

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against judgment and order dated 16.04.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, which was also dismissed by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.09.2008. Being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioner inter alia contends that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He further contends that admittedly, at the time of occurrence, the complainant and deceased were coming back from Jagran and they remained there for the entire night, as such, the incident took place due to their own negligence. She submits that the site plan relied upon by the prosecution, shows the wrong side of the vehicle. Further, statement of PW- 1, namely, Upinder Sharma is contradictory with his own statement with regard to the identity of the accused-petitioner and he was duly confronted with the statement. Furthermore, statement of PW-2, namely, Gurdeep Singh, was recorded on 04.10.2000, whereas accident in question took place on 19.07.2000. She further submits that the petitioner has already undergone custody of 04 months and 09 days inclusive of remission and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner and opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the 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.

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. 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 opp