Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:010517
235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.01.2024
Darshan Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate and
Mr. J.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 21.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana upholding judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 01.09.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ludhiana in FIR No.92 dated 15.04.1999 under Sections 279/337/338 (304-A
IPC added later on) of the IPC registered at Police Station Focal Point,
Ludhiana. The petitioner was sentenced as under:-
Under Section Sentence
304-A IPC R.I of 1.1/2 years with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of
which R.I for 30 days.
279 IPC R.I of 6 months, both to run concurrently.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that on getting a telephonic information
regarding admission of injured Maheshwar Thakur in a road-accident, ASI
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:010517
Kuldip Singh along with some other police officials visited the hospital.
However, the injured was declared unfit to make a statement by the Medical
Officer. Hence, statement of the injured could not be recorded for a while. On
25.04.1999 complainant Mohinder Thakur, who is the brother of the injured-
deceased, went to ASI Kuldip Singh and got his statement recorded. As per the
statement, when on 23.04.1999, the complainant and his brother Maheshwar
Thakur were travelling on their bicycles at about 10:05 A.M. a Punjab
Roadways bus bearing registration No.PB-12-C-9195 came at a very fast speed
without blowing horn being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
bicycle of his brother. On account of the said accident, the brother of the
complainant fell down on the road and received multiple injuries on his head,
legs, arms and chest. The driver of the bus fled away from the spot but the
complainant later on found out that the said bus was being driven by the
petitioner Darshan Singh. Then the complainant shifted his injured brother to
the hospital with the help of two police officials who were passing by. On the
basis of this statement made by the complainant who is the brother of the
injured-deceased, the aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections 279/337/338
of IPC. However, on account of death of the injured, the offence under Section
304-A IPC was added.
3. The learned trial Court upon finding a prima-facie case, framed
charges on 20.08.1999 under Section 279/304-A IPC against the petitioner, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as
many as 7 witnesses to establish its case. The statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all the incriminating
evidence put to him and pleaded false implication and innocence. Further, the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:010517
petitioner-accused tendered Ex.D1- Casualty FIR Form in his defense and
closed the same.
4. On assessing the material available on record, the learned trial
Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2007 convicted and sentenced the petitioner as
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 21.07.2008.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.09.2007 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by the petitioner, who has already undergone a
period of about 3 months of custody. He further submits that the sentence of the
petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2008. Further
submitted that the petitioner has reformed and intends to live his life as a law-
abiding citizen.
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.
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:010517
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 v. 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 realise
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 petitioner is tabulated as under:-
Petitioner-Darshan Singh:
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - 0 days
2. Custody after conviction 21.07.2008 to 92 days
21.10.2008
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:010517
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after - 92 days
conviction
5. Actual undergone period - 92 days
6. Earned remission - 0 days
7. Total sentence including 92 days
remission
10. 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 petitioner has not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer to quantum of sentence
qua the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
11. The FIR in the present case was registered on 15.04.1999.
Petitioner has been facing protracted proceedings for about 24 years. As per his
custody certificate, there are no other criminal cases pending against the
petitioner. Out of the total sentence awarded of 1 year and 6 months, he has
already undergone about 3 months of custody. Accordingly, this Court is of the
opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
12. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms:-
The judgment dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ludhiana
confirming the conviction of the petitioner is upheld,
however, the order of sentence dated 01.09.2007 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana is
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
CRR-1566-2008 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:010517
modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for one and half year awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone by him.
The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.1000/- imposed
upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court is
increased to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is 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
petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and
made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is partially
allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
24.01.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010517
6 of 6
