Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surender Singh @ Sinder vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055955
CRR-2166-2018 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:055955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
CRR-2166-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
Surender Singh @ Sinder ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Shakti Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The instant revision has been preferred by Surender Singh @
Sinder, challenging judgment dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra, in
case bearing FIR No.5, dated 03.02.2016 under Sections 380 and 457 IPC
registered at Police Station, Jhansa, District Kurukshetra has been upheld, vide
which, the accused - petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo
RI for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under
Section 411 IPC along-with fine to the tune of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof,
to undergo further imprisonment for seven days.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, he does not want
to challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, he submits that in view
of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is on
higher side.
3. Here it would be pertinent to mention that petitioner did not
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055955
CRR-2166-2018 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:055955
challenge his conviction on merits and only confined his relief qua quantum of
sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned judgment(s) as well as
the relevant documents/evidence and is of the considered view that there is no
scope for any interference in impugned judgment(s) as far as the conviction of
the petitioner is concerned. As such, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
4. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, there are mitigating
circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence awarded by the
trial court and upheld by the appellate court. Moreover, petitioner has already
suffered incarceration for a period of more than 04½ months out of total
substantive sentence of one year. Thus, this court is of the considered view that
a chance be given to the petitioners to reform & improve himself; to become a
good citizen; and to lead a peaceful & harmonious life. Though, it is evident
that the petitioner is also involved in another case under IPC but in that case he
is on bail.
5. Taking into consideration the above narrated discussion as well as
the fact that petitioner has not challenged his conviction on merits, while
affirming their conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent to the
period already undergone by him. As far the fine is concerned for the
unserved period for conviction, the same is waived off in the light of the fact
that he has no source of income who has lost his younger brother during this
period as well as father and has to look after the widow mother who has
nobody to take care.
6. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the
revision petition stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
