204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 SATISH KUMAR ... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Ashim Singh Bheniwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parneet Singh Pandher, A.A.G., Punjab.

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2009 and order of sentence dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana and judgment dated 07.08.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:-

Charge: Under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 IPC Sentence: To undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:

(a) To undergo RI for a period of six months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days under Section 279 IPC.

(b) To undergo RI for a period of two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 304-A IPC.

(c) To undergo RI for a period of three months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days under Section 337 IPC.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was driving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-26J-9278 in a rash and negligent manner which hit the Jeep of the complainant bearing registration No.HR23- 2408. As a result thereof, the occupants of the Jeep suffered multiple injuries and the driver of the Jeep and one Baljit Kaur succummbed to the injuries.

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 was 21 years of age at the time of the incident and more than two decades have passed since he is facing the rigors of trial. He has already undergone custody for a period of 04 months and 16 days out of the awarded sentence of two years. He prays that since the occurrence is of the year 2004, 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 is taken on record. He further submits that the Courts below have passed a well reasoned judgment 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 FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2004 and the appellant has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 20 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 wel