Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 12 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
2024:PHHC:007596
306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-151-2011
Date of Decision: January 12, 2024
SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. B.P.S Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner No.1.
(Petition stood disposed of qua petitioner Nos.2
to 4 vide order dated 08.03.2011).
Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate
for the complainant.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
26.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track
Court, Gurdaspur, upholding judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 17.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gurdaspur in FIR No. 1131 dated 04.08.1998 registered under Sections 326,
324, 323, 447, 148 and 149 of the IPC. The petitioner No.1 was sentenced as
under:-
Petitioner Offence under Section Sentence
Satnam Singh 148 IPC RI 1 year
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
CRR-151-20112 2 2024:PHHC:007596
326/149 IPC RI 2 years and fine
of Rs 400/-
326 IPC RI 2 years 06
months and fine of
Rs. 500/-
324/149 IPC RI 1 year
323 IPC RI 9 months
447 IPC RI 3 months
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 04.08.1998, complainant Gurpreet
Singh, along with his brother Jasbir Singh, was working in their fields when
Lakhbir Singh armed with kirpan, Satnam Singh armed with dattar, Sukhbir
Singh armed with chhavi, Prabhjit Singh armed with daang and Rupinder
Singh armed with daang came to their fields. Lakhbir Singh raised lalkara that
the complainant and his brother will be taught a lesson regarding demanding
passage and that they both will be killed. Thereafter, Lakhbir Singh gave a
kirpan blow which hit Jasbir Singh's right hand thumb, which was chopped
off. Satnam Singh gave a datar blow on Jasbir Singh which hit his left hand
thumb and right elbow. Sukhbir Singh gave a chhavi blow upon Jasbir Singh
which hit him on the right shoulder and another on the middle finger of his left
hand. Prabhjit Singh and Rupinder Singh inflicted daang blows, which hit the
complainant on his left shoulder and upper portion of left leg while it hit Jasbir
Singh on upper part of his left arm and back side of chest. Both the
complainant and his brother raised alarm and Charan Singh came to the spot to
rescue them. The accused ran away with their weapons. The motive behind the
incident was dispute regarding passage and water course.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses to establish its
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
CRR-151-20113 3 2024:PHHC:007596
case. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and
claimed trial. The accused pleaded false implication and examined one witness
in his defence.
4. On assessing the material available on record, the learned trial
Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2005 convicted and sentenced the petitioner-
accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the
petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate
Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2010.
5. The revision petition with regard to petitioners no. 2 to 4 has been
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2011 in terms of order dated
10.01.2011 passed in CRR No.3215 of 2010, while the matter against
petitioner no. 1 subsists.
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2005 on merits and
restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that
of the sentence already undergone by petitioner no. 1 as he has already
undergone a period of 1 year 19 days of custody. He further submits that the
sentence of petitioner no. 1 was suspended by this Court vide order dated
02.12.2011 and since then he has not been involved in any other criminal
activity. Furthermore, no other case is pending against him. Learned counsel
further submits that petitioner no. 1 has reformed and intend to live his life as a
law-abiding citizen.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner No.1 as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
CRR-151-20114 4 2024:PHHC:007596
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
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
9. 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
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
CRR-151-20115 5 2024:PHHC:007596
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.
10. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioner No.1 are tabulated as under:-
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial 13.08.1998 to 1 month 5 days
17.09.1998
2. Custody after conviction 26.11.2010 to 1 year 12 days
08.12.2011
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 11 months 19
conviction days
5. Actual undergone period 1 year 19 days
6. Earned remission 1 month 10 days
7. Total sentence including 1 year 1 month 29
remission days
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 petitioner No.1 has not assailed the judgment
of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer to quantum of
sentence qua petitioner No.1.
CONCLUSION
12. The FIR in the present case was instituted on 04.08.1998.
Petitioner No.1 has been facing protracted proceedings for about 25 years and
is not involved in any other criminal activity after his conviction in the present
case and during the pendency of the present revision. Since his conviction,
petitioner No.1 has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
CRR-151-20116 6 2024:PHHC:007596
peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, there are no other criminal cases
pending against him. Out of the total sentence awarded of 2 years and 06
months, he has undergone actual sentence of 1 year 19 days. 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 and 06 months, awarded to petitioner No.1
is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
13. Consequently, judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, confirming
the conviction of petitioner No.1 is upheld, however, the order of sentence
dated 17.11.2005 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years and 06 months, awarded to petitioner No.1 is reduced
to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur
confirming the conviction of the petitioner No.1 is
upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 17.11.2005
is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years and 06 months, along with
default mechanism awarded to the petitioner No.1 is
reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.500/- imposed
upon the petitioner No.1 by the learned trial Court is
increased to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner No.1 is directed
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
CRR-151-20117 7 2024:PHHC:007596
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 No.1 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 petition is partially
allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 12, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007596
7 of 7
