IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 CRR-2027-2007 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.05.2025 Vijay Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, vide which judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2005 and order on quantum of sentence dated 23.02.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, in FIR No.217 dated 18.12.1998 registered under Sections 279, 337 and

304-A IPC at Police Station Loharu, have been upheld.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2025 and was sentenced as mentioned below:

01 year and to pay fine of Rs.800/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2007 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as he has already undergone a period of 04 months and 07 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the learned Court below 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 petitioner does 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 petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 04 months and 07 days out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

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 o