Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 11 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035093
2024:PHHC:035093
252 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-4585-2016
Date of decision: 11.03.2024
KARNAIL SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. M.S. Khillan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 04.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Karnal whereby the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2013 passed by
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal in FIR No. 488 dated 20.09.2007 filed
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC registered at Civil Lines,
Karnal was upheld. Vide order of sentence dated 09.12.2013, the petitioner
was sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentence
Section 420 IPC Simple imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs.
5000/-, in default of which simple imprisonment
of 1 month
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had a 1/6th share
measuring 6 kanal, 6 marla, which he sold to Pargat Singh, father of the
complainant, vide registered sale deed no.1678/1 dated 14.05.2004, for a sum
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035093
CRR-4585-2016 2 2024:PHHC:035093
of Rs. 2,70,000/- and the corresponding mutation was entered. Pargat Singh
died on 22.08.2006 and the complainant inherited his property. However, on
03.09.2007, Ranbir Singh, Patwari informed him that the land in question has
been delivered to PSB Finance and Investment Limited, on the basis of decree
dated 13.01.1997. The petitioner-accused had executed a mortgage deed dated
25.05.1994, with the said firm to avail a loan of Rs.1,36,500/- and since he
defaulted in repayment of the same, the said land was delivered to PSB Finance
and Investment Limited.
3. On finding a prima facie, charges under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 of IPC were framed against the petitioner, to which, he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. All
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 examined 01 witness, in his defence.
4. On assessing all the material available on record, the petitioner
was convicted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.12.2013.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the learned lower Appellate
Court, wherein, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.11.2016. The
sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated
08.05.2017.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2013, on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence dated
09.12.2013, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as he
has already undergone a period of 6 months, 23 days of custody.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035093
CRR-4585-2016 3 2024:PHHC:035093
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 also
been upheld 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 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035093
CRR-4585-2016 4 2024:PHHC:035093
strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of
the accused.
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 31.10.2007 to 16 days
15.11.2007
2. Custody after conviction 04.11.2016 to 6 months 7 days
10.05.2017
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 6 months 7 days
conviction
5. Actual undergone period 6 months 23 days
6. Earned remission -
7. Total sentence including 6 months 23 days
remission
10. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
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 20.09.2007 and
the petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial since the last 16
years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen
and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, out of the total
sentence of 2 years in this case, he has undergone actual sentence of 6 months
23 days. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence of simple imprisonment of 2 years awarded to
the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035093
CRR-4585-2016 5 2024:PHHC:035093
12. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 04.11.2016 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal convicting the
petitioner is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
09.12.2013 is modified to the extent that the sentence of
simple imprisonment for 2 years along with default
mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 5000/- imposed
upon the petitioner by the trial Court is increased to
Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the
increased 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. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 11, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035093
5 of 5
