IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 JOGINDER SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate and Ms. Arzoo, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.11.2009 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) FTC-II, Sangrur vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2005 passed by ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri was upheld whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 279 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half month and Section 304-A of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

2 The brief facts of the case are that on 10.08.2001, HC Budh Singh made a statement before the police stating that he, along with Constable Chamkaur Singh, was on private patrolling duty on a scooter. On their way, they saw Constable Hans Raj (deceased) heading towards Sangrur on his scooter at about 6:00 p.m. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. HR-20A-0425 came from Kakarwal Chowk in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of Hans Raj. As a result of the accident, Hans Raj died on the spot, and the truck driver fled from the scene.

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 undergone custody for a period of 08 month and 10 days out of the awarded sentence of 02 years and stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2001, 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 are 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 2001 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 24 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 petitioner, 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 Division 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 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 grante