IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Harpreet singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. G. S. Benipal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. GREWAL , J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed with modification of the order of sentence dated 03.03.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, in case FIR No. 15 dated 14.01.2007 registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304- A, and 427 IPC at Police Station Kharar. Vide the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.01.2007, complainant Amritpal, along with his father Harbans Singh, mother Baljit Kaur, and elder brother Gurjit Singh, was proceeding towards Village Ballo Majra in a Maruti car. At about 10:30 p.m., when they reached near Sunny Enclave, Mundi Kharar, one Tavera vehicle bearing registration No. PB-12H-0049, being driven rashly, negligently, and at a high speed, came from the Chandigarh side and struck against their car. At the time of the accident, Harbans Singh, father of the complainant, was driving the car, and the complainant was sitting on the front seat with him. As a result of the impact, Harbans Singh sustained head injuries and died at the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended at the scene. Thereafter, a formal FIR, i.e., FIR No. 15 dated 14.01.2007, was registered against the driver of the Tavera vehicle under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, and 427 of the IPC. After considering the evidence and hearing both sides, the learned trial Court convicted Harpreet Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle, and sentenced him to undergo two years’ imprisonment. Aggrieved therefrom, Harpreet Singh preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, which modified the judgment of the trial Court by reducing the sentence from two years to one year under Section 304-A IPC. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.03.2012 on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to the period as already undergone by the petitioner, as he has already undergone a period of 04 months and 16 days out of total sentence of 1 year. He further prays that since the FIR in question pertains to the year 2007, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order/ judgment by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner by way of filing of custody certificate dated 11.11.2025 and submits that the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

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

6. The petitioner has been convicted for rash and negligent driving and for causing death of a person, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2007 and the petitioner has already faced the rigours of the trial for more than 18 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,