IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Balwant Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, 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 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Barnala, has been upheld. Vide the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, along with a fine of ₹500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.12.2014, the complainant’s nephew Manoj Kumar was going on his motor cycle bearing No.PB-19G-2061 from his home towards Barnala and when he reached ahead of Pakho Kanchiyan, a canter bearing No.PB-07-2320 was stranded on the road. The motor-cycle struck against the backside of Center. He fell on the road and Manoj Kumar died on the spot due to severe injuries. Thereafter, a formal FIR, i.e., FIR No. 64 dated 14.12.2014, was registered under Sections 279, 427, and 304-A IPC at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala, against the driver of the offending vehicle. After considering the evidence and hearing both sides, the learned trial Court convicted Balwant Singh and sentenced him to undergo two years’ imprisonment. Aggrieved therefrom, Balwant Singh preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence. 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 22.02.2021 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 03 months and 03 days out of total sentence of 2 years. He further prays that since the FIR in question pertains to the year 2014, 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 12.11.2025 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 2014 and the petitioner has already faced the rigours of the trial for more than 11 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-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP