IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

203 CRR-1553-2008 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.05.2025 Jagmohan Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 15.01.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in FIR No.98 dated 14.05.1998 registered under Sections 332, 353, 186 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana District Ludhiana, have been upheld.

2. The petitioners were convicted by the learned trial Court and were sentenced as mentioned below:

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2008 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners, as the petitioners have already undergone a period of 03 months and 05 days each including remission and they are not involved in any other criminal activity.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that 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, the petitioners do not deserve any leniency.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioners were convicted under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per custody certificate, the petitioners are not involved in any other case and have already undergone an actual sentence of 03 months and 05 days each including remission out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

6. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. 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, the 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.

7. Further, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. 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 conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

8. A perusal of the judgment of convicti