IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

244 CRR-2535-2011 (O&M).

Decided on: September 17, 2025.

MANGE RAM AND OTHERS ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2006, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, in case bearing FIR No.685 dated 31.10.1996, under Sections 323, 325, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, whereby the petitioners have been sentenced as under:-

2. Challenge in the present petition is also to the judgment dated

30.09.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners bearing Criminal Appeal No.20 of 09.06.2006, against the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been dismissed.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that he does not wish to press the present revision petition on merits and confines his prayer only to the extent of punishment and prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them in view of the mitigating circumstances.

4 He contends that the incident in question pertains to the year 1996. It is also borne out from a perusal of the case file that it was a case of inter se minor dispute between the residents of the same village and a scuffle took place as a result thereof. The injuries were thus sustained.

5 It is submitted that the petitioners were then aged 34 years, 29 years and 29 years respectively in the year 1997. A period of nearly 29 years has elapsed since the commission of the offence. The petitioners are either already in their sixties or nearing it. It is submitted that the petitioners were not involved in any other criminal case either prior to the aforesaid incident or even thereafter. Petitioner Mange Ram has three daughters; petitioner Pawan has four daughters and a son; and petitioner Mahender was then looking after his old parents and there would be a family now to take care of. Petitioners have moved on in their lives and are now well settled after overcoming the minor disputes. The very fact that they have not been involved in any other criminal case during a period of nearly 29 years despite their sentence being suspended shows that the petitioners have shown marked improvement in their conduct and have resorted to peaceful means. It is submitted that compelling the petitioners to undergo the remaining sentence at this stage would unsettle their families. He also submits that the petitioners have also undergone the agony of trial for a period of nearly 29 years. It is also submitted that the respective petitioners have undergone an actual sentence of nearly 03 months before it was suspended by this Court in the year 2011.

6 The counsel appearing on behalf of the State states that he has no objection in case the prayer is considered to the extent of quantum of sentence only.

7 No other argument has been raised by either of the counsel appearing. No judgment has also been cited.

8 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on record.

9 The object of punishment is not only to punish but also to rehabilitate the offenders in society. Where an accused reflects a strong possibility of improvement and reformative behaviour, the process of law should come to the aid of such an accused so as to ensure his reintegration into society.

PARAMETERS AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING:

10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to govern the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Ors