Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Paswan vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032548
CRR-464-2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:032548
238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-464-2018
Date of decision: 05.03.2024
Joginder Paswan @ Yoginder Paswan ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
06.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide
which judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2016 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara in FIR No. 65 dated 04.06.2014 filed under
Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 427 of the IPC registered at Police Station Sadar
Phagwara was upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence
Section 304-A of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years
Section 279 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 6 months
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 03.06.2014, complainant namely
Krishna was the pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration no. PB-08-
AR-2593, which was being driven by his nephew Manish Kumar. When they
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032548
CRR-464-2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:032548
were returning to Peepa Rangi, Phagwara on the said motorcycle, another
motorcyle bearing registration no. PB-36-F-8187 being driven by the petitioner
in a rash and negligent manner hit the vehicle of the complainant. Resultantly,
the complainant received injuries while his nephew Manish Kumar died.
3. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 279/304-A of
IPC was framed against the petitioner-accused to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. All
the incriminating evidence was put to the petitioner-accused in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded false implication
and claimed innocence, but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. On assessing all material available on record, the petitioner was
convicted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 04.06.2014. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate
Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.11.2017. The sentence of
the petitioner was suspended by this Court during the pendency of the present
petition vide order dated 08.05.2018.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.06.2014 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 as has already undergone a period
of 6 months 18 days of custody and is not involved in any other criminal
activity.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been upheld
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032548
CRR-464-2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:032548
by the learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any
leniency.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
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
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.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032548
CRR-464-2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:032548
9. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioner are tabulated as under:-
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 06.11.2017 to 6 months 18 days
23.05.2018
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 6 months 18 days
conviction
5. Actual undergone period 6 months 18 days
6. Earned remission 16 days
7. Total sentence including 7 months 4 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. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the
judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua
quantum of sentence.
CONCLUSION
11. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 04.06.2014 and
the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last decade. Since
his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to
live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any
other case and out of the total sentence of 2 years in this case, he has undergone
actual sentence of 6 months 18 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 year awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032548
CRR-464-2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:032548
12. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i)The judgment dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala confirming the
conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the order
of sentence dated 14.12.2016 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, is modified to the
extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2
years awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) The petitioner is also directed to deposit an amount of
fine of Rs. 10,000/- 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
05.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032548
5 of 5
