IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 SUBHASH SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishab Singla, AAG, Punjab H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.07.2010 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the conviction order dated 24.12.2009 passed by ld. Sub Division Judicial Magistrate Dasuya, Hoshiapur was upheld.

2 The brief facts of the prosecution story is that on 18.8.2002 the complainant Gurminder Singh got recorded his statement Singh to the effect that on 18.8.2002 at 7 A.M., the complainant alongwith Piara Singh Kulwant Kaur, Paramit Kaur, Sharanjit Kaur and Ravinder Singh was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing No. PB-02-AC-8435 and when they reached near the Sahara Pool, a truck bearing No. PB-08F-2865 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road came and hit against the car, which resulted in Piara Singh’s death at the spot and the remaining occupants of the Maruti car suffered grievous injuries. The truck driver ran away from the spot after the accident. The said accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, the petitioner was convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months under Section 279 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months under Section 338 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year under Section 304-A of the IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also contends that the petitioner has already undergone custody for a period of 03 months and 24 days out of the awarded sentence of 01 year and stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2002, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and filed the custody certificate in the Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the Courts below has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2002 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 23 years.

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held 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.

8. Further, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by makin