Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aamin vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037355
2024:PHHC:037355
245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3149-2018 (O & M)
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
AAMIN
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Salman Ahmed, Advocate for
Mr. Mohd. Arshad, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
04.09.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mewat, vide which, judgment of
conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 19.04.2018 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, in FIR No.354 dated
26.05.2014 registered under Section 324 IPC at Police Station Nuh, has been
upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
Section 324 IPC Imprisonment for 03 years and a fine
of Rs.3,000/-, in default of which SI
of 03 months.
2. On 26.05.2014, HC Naseem Akhtar alongwth Ct. Devi Singh was
present at I.T.I., Marora. Amir Khan presented a complaint that on 23.05.2014
at around 8.00 PM, his family members were busy in looking after the guests
on the occasion of marriage of his two daughters. His father Abdul Gaffar
brought a water tanker. There was some obstruction in front of the house of
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037355
CRR-3149-2018 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:037355
Khalil and Jahangir. He stopped the tanker there. Khalil and Jahangir stopped
him from parking the tanker there. Thereafter, Jahangir, Khalil, Aslam, Irshad,
Mustkeem, Sahoon, Umra, Waheed, Aamin (petitioner herein), Arif, Abid,
Nisar, Tayub, Sarif, Abbas, Aslam son of Ashu, Sanjay, Sehrun and Nisar
came to his house and started throwing stones. They damaged the refrigerator
and washing machine. Tayub and Sarif both sons of Noor Mohd. took them to
their house. The said persons also damaged their vehicle no. HR-74I-6250.
Irshad pointed a gun at him and fired in the air. Aslam pointed a country made
pistol at his father Abdul Gaffar. Arif fired in the air from his pistol. Sehrun
and Sarif were armed with country made pistols and threatened to kill them.
Aamin (petitioner herein) caused injury to Imtiyaj with farsa. Kurshid, Rajjak
and Samma saved them from the accused who threatened to kill while leaving.
3. The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 19.04.2018
passed by the learned trial Court, which has also been upheld by lower
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the dismissal
of the appeal by learned Sessions Judge, Mewat, the parties have amicably
settled the dispute and the compromise was reduced into writing. The copy of
the same is available on record as Annexure P-1 and the petitioner has
undergone a period of 01 month and 24 days out of 03 years of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.04.2018 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.
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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037355
CRR-3149-2018 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:037355
upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, he does not deserve
any leniency.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
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.
9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037355
CRR-3149-2018 (O & M) 4 2024:PHHC:037355
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 as the compromise has been
effected between the parties.
10. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 26.05.2014 and the
petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial since the last 10
years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen
and desires to live a peaceful life and further, a compromise has also been
arrived at between the parties. As per his custody certificate, he has undergone
actual sentence of 01 month and 24 days out of total sentence of 03 years in the
instant case.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner/appellant is reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
12. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Mewat, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld,
however, the order of sentence dated 20.04.2018 is modified to
the extent that the sentence of simple imprisonment for 03 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.3,000/- imposed upon
the petitioner by the 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037355
CRR-3149-2018 (O & M) 5 2024:PHHC:037355
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 14, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037355
5 of 5
