Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
248
2024:PHHC:044169
Criminal Revision No.3127 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: April 2nd, 2024
Jagdeep Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition to
impugn the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal preferred by him against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2016
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, was dismissed.
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2016,
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, convicted and sentenced
the petitioner as under:-
Offence(s) u/s Period of Fine imposed Period of
sentence(s) sentence in
default of
payment of fine
326 IPC RI for three `1000/- SI for one month
years
324 IPC RI for two years
2. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has fairly
submitted that in view of the findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts below, he would not press the instant revision petition on merits
and would instead restrict his prayer qua the quantum of sentence only.
Learned counsel submits that the occurrence in question pertains to the
year 2011 and the petitioner has thus, suffered the agony of a
protracted trial for more than 13 years. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner has been leading a disciplined life ever since
then and has not been involved in any other criminal case. A prayer,
therefore, has been made that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
a lenient view be taken and the quantum of sentence awarded to the
petitioner by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone
as no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind
bars.
4. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for
respondent No.2-complainant while opposing the prayer made by
counsel opposite submits that due to the occurrence in question, the
complainant sustained grievous injuries, hence, the petitioner did not
deserve any leniency. A prayer, therefore, has been made for dismissal
of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.
6. This Court does not find any illegality much less
perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts
below, which are thus upheld.
7. Coming to the prayer of the learned counsel for the
petitioner with respect to quantum of sentence, it would be apposite to
point out here that the occurrence in question took place in the year
2011 and ever since then the petitioner has faced long and protracted
2024.04.02 18:47 criminal proceedings for more than 13 years. It has not been disputed
by the State counsel that after the occurrence in question, the petitioner
has not been involved in any other criminal case and concededly, has
not misused the concession of bail granted to him during all these
preceding years.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not
deem it appropriate to send the petitioner behind bars at this juncture
when admittedly he has been fastened with many responsibilities in the
preceding few years. It cannot be overlooked that the ultimate goal of
punishment in a modern civilized society is to attempt reformation of
the offender. It may not always be necessary in each and every case to
incarcerate the offender where he/she has had an opportunity to repent
for his/her wrongs.
9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash vs. State of
Haryana, 1981(1) SCC 447 has also observed that "it is the duty of the
sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a
bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant."
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met, if
while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, his substantive
sentence of thee years is reduced to the period already undergone by
him which in the present case is one year and three months.
11. However, fine imposed on the petitioner is enhanced from
`1,000/- to `35,000/- under Section 326 of the IPC. It is made clear
that in case of non-deposit of fine with the trial/successor Court within
a period of two months from the date of this order, benefit of reduction
of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner and he will be required to
undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him. On deposit
of fine, the enhanced amount of fine shall be disbursed to the
injured/complainant, against proper identification.
12. With the aforesaid modifications, the instant revision
petition is disposed of.
April 2nd, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
