Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
CRR-2594-2012 (O&M) 1
238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2594-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
SURESH KUMAR
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CRR-478-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
NARENDER
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CRR-1456-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
RAM PRIYAJAN
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vikram K. Chaudhari, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parvez Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-2594-2012.
Mr. Kunal Kawar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-478-2013
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-1456-2013.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. These revision petitions have been preferred against two
judgments dated 13.08.2012 and 17.12.2012 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which judgment of conviction and order of
quantum of sentence dated 11.03.2011/12.03.2011 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in FIR No. 146 dated 12.08.2008
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian
Penal Code at Police Station Bhupani, District Faridabad has been upheld.
The petitioners/revisionists was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
Section 420 IPC read with Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years
120-B of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default
mechanism
Section 467 IPC read with Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years
120-B of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default
mechanism
Section 468 IPC read with Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years
120-B of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default
mechanism
Section 471 IPC read with Section Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years
1120-B of IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default
mechanism
2. The present case was registered on the statement of complainant
Mahender Singh (GPA of Smt. Munesh Kumari) on the allegations that
Smt. Munesh Kumari wife of complainant is absolute owner and in
possession of land bearing khewat No.345/336, khatoni No.475/472, khasra
no.1815(0-7) gair mumkin 1816/1(0-5) gair mumkin total measuring 0-12
biswa pukhta situated within the revenue estate of Faridabad, Tehsil and
District Faridabad which was purchased through registered sale deed
bearing vasika No.28868 dated 26.3.2008 registered in the office of Sub
Registrar, Faridabad and the Tark Kast registered vide vasika No.4647
dated 26.5.2008 in the office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad. The
aforementioned property was previously owned by Smt. Ram Pyari wife of
Shri Asha Nand son of Shri Khillu which was under the possession of
Girdhari Lal and Chetan Dass both sons of Shri Bhagwan Dass in the
capacity of gair morusi as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000. Shri Asha
Nand as well as Girdhari Lal and Chetan Dass both sons of Bhagwan Dass
gair morusi had died long ago, therefore, his wife Munesh Kumari
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
purchased the ownership rights of the land in question from the legal heirs/
legal representatives of Smt. Ram Pyari wife of Asha Nand. Since Smt. Ram
Pyari wife of Asha Nand had died on 15.11.1993 and her husband Asha
Nand had also died on 12.10.1997 leaving behind the legal heirs, therefore,
all the legal heirs executed a registered sale deed with regard to the owner-
ship rights of the land in question in favour of Munesh Kumari wife of
complainant through registered sale deed dated 26.3.2008 bearing vasika
No.28868 registered in the office of Sub Pegistrar, Faridabad. Similarly Shri
Girdhari Lal died on 7.11.1969 and Chetan Dass died on 13.8.1992,
therefore, their legal representatives executed Tark Kast with regard to the
aforementioned land in favour of his wife Smt. Munesh Kumari through a
registered document bearing vasika No.4647 dated 26.5.2008 registered in
the office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad and since then the complainant is
owner in possession of the entire piece of land. However, when the
complainant contacted Patwari concerned for the purpose of sanctioning of
mutations, then he was shocked and surprised to see that the aforementioned
accused by impersonation had succeeded in forging and fabricating a fake
sale deed as well as Tark Kast on behalf of Ram Pyari, Girdhari Lal and
Chetan Dass who had already died. When all the aforesaid persons had
already died then by impersonating Ram Pyari a sale deed was registered at
vasika No.28159 dated 17.3.2008 with regard to the land in question in
favour of Smt. Sharda Devi wife of Shri Prahlad and a fake GPA was also
got prepared by the alleged fake Ram Pyari in favour of Prem Chand son of
Shri Roshan Lal which was witnessed by Suresh Khanna Advocate and Shiv
Dutt Nambardar. Similarly, the sale deed dated 17.3.2008 was drafted by
M.K. Gaur, Advocate and in furtherance of their
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
common intention said Sharda Devi further executed a sale deed bearing
vasika No.1805 dated 21.4.2008 in favour of Smt. Santra Devi wife of Shri
Phool Singh which was witnessed by Shri R.C.Chauhan, Advocate and
Phool Singh son of Bihari Lal. In addition to above further a forged Tark
Kast was also got prepared by the aforesaid persons in furtherance of their
common intention which was executed by Girdhari Lal and Chetan Dass al-
though both had already expired on 7.11.1969 and 13.8.1992 respectively
in favour of Smt. Ram Pyari on 13.8.1992 who has also died on 15.11.1993
and the said Tarak Kast was registered at vasika No.27214 dated 7.3.2008
which was witnessed by Shri Suresh Khanna, Advocate, Mange Ram son of
Gugan and drafted by M.K.Gaur, Advocate. It further submitted in the
complaint that all the accused forged and fabricated the documents in
connivance with one another in order to cheat the complainant and played
fraud upon the complainant. On the basis of these forged and fabricated
documents Patwari concerned had initially sanctioned the mutation. When
the complainant came to appellants-accused and Patwari concerned, then he
came to know about the fraud played and after apprising him about the
situation and showing him the documents requested him to cancel the
mutations and sale deeds. He also contacted aforesaid appellants-accused
but they threatened him with dire consequences. They threatened to
eliminate him in case he proceeded against them in the Court. On the basis
of this complaint FIR was registered. Relevant record was collected.
Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of necessary
investigation, challan was presented before the Court.
3. The petitioners were convicted vide judgement dated 11.03.2011
by the learned trial Court which has also been upheld by lower appellate
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
court vide judgments dated 13.08.2012 and 17.12.2012 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2011 on merits
and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence
dated 12.03.2011 to that of the sentence already undergone by the
petitioner-Ram Priyajan, who has already undergone a period of 02 years
and 05 days and petitioner-Narender, who has already undergone a period
of 11 months and 16 days and petitioner-Suresh Kumar, who has already
undergone a period of 03 months and 09 days.
5. 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
also been upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, they dos
not deserve any leniency.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
7. 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 sen-
tence, 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 de-
termining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used ar-
bitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
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 imposi-
tion of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by mak-
ing 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.
8. 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 appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, Learned
counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the judgment of conviction on
merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
9. The FIR/complaint in the present case was lodged on 12.08.2008
and the petitioners have been suffering the agony of trial since the last 15
years. Since their conviction, the petitioners have grown into a law-abiding
citizen and desires to live a peaceful life. As per their custody certificate,
petitioners Suresh Kumar and Ram Priyajan have not been involved in any
other case, whereas petitioner-Narender has been convicted in one more
case and had undergone actual sentence of 02 years 05 days by petitioner-
Ram Priyajan, 11 months 16 days by petitioner-Narender Kumar and 03
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
2024:PHHC:038522
months and 13 days by petitioner-Suresh Kumar, out of total sentence of 03
years in the instant case.
10. 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.
11. Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgments dated 13.08.2012 and 17.12.2012 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad affirming the judgment
of conviction, is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
12.03.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 03 years 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 an amount of Rs. 4000/- each imposed
upon the petitioners by the trial Court is increased to Rs. 10000/-
each. The petitioners are 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 petition-
ers shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigor-
ous imprisonment for one month.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
14.03.2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038522
7 of 7
