IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 Date of decision: 24.09.2025 Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. L.R. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

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

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The instant criminal revision petition assails the judgment and order dated 20.02.2013/22.02.2013 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar, whereby the petitioner was held guilty and sentenced in case bearing FIR No. 740 dated 15.11.2011, registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar as well as to the judgment dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal against the same was dismissed. The petitioner has been sentenced as under:-

These substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel contends that the sentence awarded to the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated 04.08.2016 passed by this Court and at this stage, he does not wish to press the instant petition on merits and confines his prayer to the quantum of punishment and sentence imposed by the trial Court. He prays that the sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone.

3. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that he has no objection in case the prayer is considered.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the instant petition, with their able assistance.

5. 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 by his reformative behaviour, the process of law should come to the aid of such an accused and ensure his reintegration into society.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid 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 (2008) 7 SCC 550. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“5. 'Whether the Court, while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.

7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal of any justice-delivery system. Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on sentence, as would appear from sub-section (2) of Section 235, sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence must take into consideration a large number of relevant factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of them.

8. Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is also relevant.

9. What would be the effect of the sent