Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harchand Singh @ Chand vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
Criminal Revision No. 341 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 341 of 2011
Harchand Singh @Chand
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 564 of 2011
Amarjit Singh
........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
Date of Decision: January 19, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order shall dispose of both the above-mentioned
petitions as they arise out of the same factual matrix.
2. The instant revision petitions have been preferred against the
judgment dated 01.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ferozpur upholding judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
11.03.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar in FIR
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
No. 102 dated 25.06.2002 under Section 326, 324, 323 and 109 of the IPC. The
petitioners were sentenced as under:-
Petitioner Under Section Sentence
Harchand Singh @ 326/34 IPC RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in
Chand default of which RI for 15 days
325/34 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in
default of which RI for 15 days
323/34 IPC RI for 6 months
Amarjit Singh 326/34 IPC RI for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in
default of which RI for 15 days
325/34 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in
default of which RI for 15 days
323/34 RI for 6 months
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 24.06.2002, the petitioners-accused
attacked the complainant-Ranjit Singh when he was waiting for his bus along
with his sister Iqbal Kaur. Petitioner-Harchand Singh was armed with a gandasa
and gave a blow on right arm and on the backside of the head of the complainant.
Petitioner-Amarjit Singh was armed with a takua and gave a blow on the right
arm of the complainant. The accused was nurturing a grudge against the
complainant as they had a joint plot which the accused wanted to sell but the sale
was being resisted by the complainant.
3. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to establish its
case. The respective statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
were recorded where they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and
claimed false implication and examined three witnesses in their defence.
4. On assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court
vide judgment and dated 11.03.2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioners-
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the
petitioners-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court
which was dismissed vide judgment dated 01.02.2011.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2010 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by petitioners as Harchand Singh @ Chand has
already undergone a period of 24 days of custody while Amarjit Singh has
already undergone a period of 2 months 26 days of custody. He further submits
that the sentence of petitioner-Harchand Singh was suspended by this Court vide
order dated 21.02.2011 and the sentence of petitioner-Amarjit Singh was
suspended by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2011. Since the suspension of
their sentence, they have not been involved in any other criminal activity.
Furthermore, no other case is pending against them. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioners have reformed and intend to live their life as law-
abiding citizens.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioners as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been upheld
by the learned lower appellate Court, as such, he does not deserve any leniency.
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
8. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a
three Judge bench of 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. Further, a two Judge
Bench of 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 by making the accused realize the damage caused
not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is
well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion
is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by
noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed
and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law
and the chances of reformation of the accused. In order to determine the
quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle of proportionality
as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but also reformative.
9. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel,
details of custody period of the petitioners are tabulated as under:-
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
Petitioner- Harchand Singh:
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 01.02.2011 to 24 days
25.02.2011
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 01.02.2011 to 24 days
conviction 25.02.2011
5. Actual undergone period 01.02.2011 to 24 days
25.02.2011
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including remission - 24 days
Petitioner- Amarjit Singh:
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 01.02.2011 to 2 months 26
28.04.2011 days
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 01.02.2011 to 2 months 26
conviction 28.04.2011 days
5. Actual undergone period 01.02.2011 to 2 months 26
28.04.2011 days
6. Earned remission - 4 days
7. Total sentence including remission - 3 months
11. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their
finding and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on
record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer to quantum of sentence
qua the petitioners.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
CONCLUSION
12. The FIR in the present case was instituted on 25.06.2002.
Petitioners have been facing protracted proceedings for about 22 years and are
not involved in any other criminal activity after their conviction in the present
case and during the pendency of the present revision petitions. Since their
conviction, petitioners have grown into a law-abiding citizen and desire to live a
peaceful life. As per their custody certificates, there are no other criminal cases
pending against petitioner-Harchand Singh while one FIR under Section 13A of
Public Gambling Act, 1867 is pending against petitioner-Amarjit Singh, in which
he has been granted the concession of bail. Out of the total sentence awarded of
2 years, Harchand Singh @ Chand has already undergone a period of 24 days of
custody while Amarjit Singh has already undergone a period of 2 months 26
days of custody. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 2 years awarded
to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
13. Consequently, judgment dated 01.02.2011 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur, confirming the conviction of the
petitioners is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 11.03.2010 is
modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone
by them. Consequently, the present revision petitions are disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ferozpur confirming the conviction of the petitioner
is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 11.03.2010 is
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
2024:PHHC:007781
modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for 2 years along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioners
is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.1000/- imposed upon
the petitioners by the learned trial Court is increased to Rs.10,000/-
each. The petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of fine in the
trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, the
petitioners shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petitions are
partially allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
January 19, 2024
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007781
7 of 7
