Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 12.03.2024
1. CRR-1786-2017
DAVINDER SINGH @ BITTU
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
2. CRR-1864-2017
SIMARJIT SINGH @ MANGA
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
3. CRR-464-2019
LAKHVIR SINGH @ PALLA
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. GauravRana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CRR-1786-2017
& CRR-1864-2017.
Mr. DPS Bajwa, Advocate
for petitioner in CRR-464-2019.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab
****
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2024 01:52:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
CRR-1786-2017 (O&M) 2
and connected cases
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
This common judgment of mine shall dispose of above captioned
three criminal revisions as they arise out of the common FIR. For the sake of
brevity, facts are borrowed from CRR-1786 of 2017 titled as Davinder Singh
@ Bittu vs. State of Punjab.
2. These revisions have been preferred against the 2 judgments dated
22.02.2017 and 25.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ludhiana whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.08.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana in FIR,
bearing no. 271 dated 10.10.2008 under Sections 452, 323, 506, 354, 34 of the
IPC registered at Police Station Focal Point, was upheld. The petitioners were
sentenced as under: -
Petitioner Offence under Sentence
Section
Davinder Singh 452 IPC SI 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default of which SI of30days
323 IPC SI 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default
of which SI of 30days
506 IPC SI 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default
of which SI of 30days
Simarjit Singh 452 IPC SI 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default of which SI of 30 days
323 IPC SI 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default
of which SI of 30 days
506 IPC SI 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default
of which SI of 30 days
Lakhvir Singh 452 IPC SI 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default of which SI of 30 days
323 IPC SI 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default
of which SI of 30 days
506 IPC SI 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default
of which SI of 30 days
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 10.10.2008, ASI Jasvinder Singh,
along with other police personnel, was on patrolling duty, when the
complainant, namely, Sunita approached them and got her statement recorded.
As per her statement, on 09.10.2008 at about 8:00 p.m., the petitioners-accused
forcibly entered her house. They were all in an inebriated condition and tried to
sexually assault her. She managed to break free from the clutches of the
petitioners-accused by rushing to a room and bolting the door shut. However,
they managed to break the lock of the door and entered the room. On objecting
to their advances, she was physically assaulted. Thereafter, the complainant
raised hue and cry and one Darshan Singh, came to the spot and rescued her.
While fleeing from the spot, the petitioners threatened the complainant that in
case she discloses theiridentities to anyone, they would kill her. Subsequently,
she got herself medically examined at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and on the
basis of her statement the FIR was registered.
3. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 452, 323,
354, 506, 34 of IPC were framed against the accused persons, to which, they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 03
witnesses to prove its case. Subsequently, statements of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein the
petitioners pleaded false implication, however, no witness was examined in
order to prove their innocence.
4. On assessing all the material available on record, the learned trial
Court vide judgmentdated 21.06.2014 convicted and sentenced the petitioners-
accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
petitioners-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate
Court which was dismissed vide judgments dated 22.02.2017 and 25.10.2017.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that theyare not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2014 on merits and
restricts their prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that
of the sentence already undergone by petitioners as Davinder Singh has already
undergone a period of 05 months and 28 days of custody, Simarjit Singh has
undergone a period of 06 months of custody, and Lakhvir Singh has undergone
a period of 01 year, 05 months and 24 days of custody. Learned counsel further
submit 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 and as such, they do 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
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
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 RavadaSasikala
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 are tabulated as under:-
(i) Davinder Singh @ Bittu
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 22.02.2017to 05 months 28
19.08.2017 days
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
3. Parole availed - -
4. Actual custody period after 22.02.2017 to 05 months 28
conviction 19.08.2017 days
5. Actual undergone period 22.02.2017 to 05 months 28
19.08.2017 days
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 22.02.2017 to 05 months 28
remission 19.08.2017 days
(ii) Simarjit Singh @ Manga
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial 12.10.2008 to 18 days
30.10.2008
2. Custody after conviction 22.02.2017to 05 months 12
03.08.2017 days
3. Parole availed - -
4. Actual custody period after 22.02.2017 to 05 months 12
conviction 03.08.2017 days
5. Actual undergone period 06 months
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 06 months
remission
(iii) Lakhvir Singh
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial 21.08.2014 to 01 month and 17
07.10.2014 days
2. Custody after conviction 25.10.2017to 01 year, 04
01.03.2019 months and 07
days
3. Parole availed - -
4. Actual custody period after 25.10.2017 to 01 year, 04
conviction 01.03.2019 months and 07
days
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
5. Actual undergone period 01 year, 05
months and 24
days
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 01 year, 05
remission months and 24
days
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 petitioners have not assailed the
judgment of conviction on merits, rather they have restricted their prayer to
quantum of sentence qua the petitioners.
CONCLUSION
11. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 10.10.2008. The
petitioners have been facing protracted proceedings for more than 16 years and
are both Davinder Singh and Lakhvir Singh not involved in any other criminal
activity after their conviction in the present case and during the pendency of
the present revision. Since their conviction, the petitioners have grown into a
law-abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful life. Out of the total sentence
of 2 years under Section 452 IPC, 1 year under Section 323 IPC, and 1 year
under Section 506 IPC, Davinder Singh has already undergone a period of 05
months and 28 days of custody, Simarjit Singh has undergone a period of 06
months of custody, and Lakhvir Singh has undergone a period of 01 year, 05
months and 24 days of custody. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it
would be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
12. Accordingly, the two judgments dated 22.02.2017 and 25.10.2017
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, confirming the
conviction of the petitioners are upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
21.08.2014 is modified to the extent that that the sentence awarded to the
petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.
13. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms: -
(i) The judgments dated 22.02.2017 and 25.10.2017 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana confirming
the conviction of the petitioners is upheld, however, the
order of sentence dated 21.08.2014 is modified to the
extent that the sentence of simple imprisonment for 2
years under Section 452 IPC, 1 year under Section 323
IPC, and 1 year under Section 506 IPC, 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 a lump sum amount of Rs. 1500/-
imposed upon each of petitioners by the learned trial
Court is increased to Rs.10,000/- each of the petitioners.
The petitioners are 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
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
2024:PHHC:036324
and connected cases
petitioners 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 12, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036324
9 of 9
