250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.05.2025 Rohit ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, in FIR No.90 dated 06.05.2019 filed under Sections 325/323/34 of IPC, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 13.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.12.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.50,000/- in terms of order dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court, has been deposited with the trial Court and he has no objection if the same be released in favour of the injured/complainant, namely, Beant Singh. Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 04 months and 10 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioner was involved in one more case in which he is on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. He further submits that the accused/petitioner was involved in one more case, however, could not controvert the fact that he is on bail in the said case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Section 325 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificates, petitioner has already undergone a period of 04 months and 10 days in custody out of total sentence of three years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 325 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined 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, 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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent b