Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
2024:PHHC:039381
246-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
1. CRR-2733-2022
AJAIB SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
2. CRR-2792-2022 (O & M)
MEHAL SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
3. CRR-2961-2022
DALBIR SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Satyawan Singh Nain, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-2733 of 2022.
Mr. Baltej Nain, Advocate
for petitioner in CRR-2792-2022.
None for the petitioner
in CRR-2961-2022.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This common judgment of mine shall dispose of above-mentioned
three criminal revisions as they arise out of the common FIR. For the sake of
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
CRR-2733-2022 & 2 2024:PHHC:039381
02 connected cases
brevity, facts are borrowed from CRR-2733 of 2022 titled as Ajaib Singh vs.
State of Haryana.
2. These revisions have been preferred against the judgment dated
16.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2016 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Assandh in case bearing FIR No.294
dated 06.08.2007 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Police
Station Assandh, was upheld. The petitioners were sentenced as under: -
Petitioner Offence under Sentence
Section
1. Ajaib Singh 468 IPC RI 03 years and a fine of Rs.500/- each,
2. Mehal Singh in default of which SI of 15 days.
3. Dalbir Singh 469 IPC RI 02 years and fine of Rs.300/- each, in
default of which SI of 01 month.
471 IPC RI 03 years and fine of Rs.500/- each.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that on 06.08.2007, a complaint under section
156(3) Cr.P.C was received in police station wherein complainant Tehal Singh
submitted that he is owner in possession of one bara to the extent of ½ share
out of land measuring 1K-2M comprised in khewat no. 25, khatoni no. 33, rect.
no. 150, killa no.22/17 (0-2), rect. no. 331/16(0-10), 331/17(0-10) situated in
village Shekhpura Manchuri, Tehsil Assapdh, District Karnal vide jamabandi
for the year 1999-2000. One Smt.Gurmeet Kaur procured a sale deed in
collusion with Harjeet Singh, Dalbir Singh (petitioner herein) and Ajaib Singh
(petitioner herein) qua his share in above-mentioned land in her favour
fraudulently. Dalbir Singh (petitioner herein) and Ajaib Singh (petitioner
herein) became witnesses to sale deed no.349/1 dated 10.5.2006 and Harjeet
Singh appeared as purchaser to get the sale deed executed and registered in
favour of Gurmeet Kaur. The complainant has never appeared nor gave any
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
CRR-2733-2022 & 3 2024:PHHC:039381
02 connected cases
authority to any person to execute the sale deed in favour of accused-Gurmeet
Kaur. Petitioners produced a stranger person as vendor of the land and
petitioners-Dalbir and Ajaib Singh have identified that person wrongly as
complainant. All accused in furtherance of their common intention had played
fraud with complainant and procured a forged document in favour of accused
Gurmeet Kaur. Complainant did not receive even a single penny in lieu of the
sale deed. Complainant is well known to all accused persons/petitioners and
they are able to identify him and his property being co-villagers. The
petitioners played fraud upon complainant as well as Sub-Registrar, Assandh
and procured false and fabricated documents in their favour and tried to
transfer the total land in favour of Gurmeet Kaur. On the basis of this
complaint, a formal FIR bearing No. 294 dated 6.8.2007 was registered.
Investigation was conducted. During investigation, police has found Mehal
Singh (petitioner herein) as guilty and he was joined as accused in present case.
3. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC were framed against the accused persons,
to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined
as many as 09 witnesses to prove its case. Subsequently, statements of the
accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were
recorded, wherein, the petitioners pleaded false implication and examined 02
witnesses in order to prove their innocence.
4. On assessing all the material available on record, the learned trial
Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2016 convicted and sentenced the petitioners-
accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the
petitioners-accused preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate
Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.2022.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
CRR-2733-2022 & 4 2024:PHHC:039381
02 connected cases
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they are not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2016 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 Ajaib Singh has already
undergone a period of 07 months and 09 days of his custody, Mehal Singh has
already undergone a period of 04 months and 06 days of his custody and Dalbir
Singh has already undergone a period of approximately 05 months of his
custody. Learned counsel further submit that the petitioners have reformed and
intend to live their life as law-abiding citizens. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that compromise has also been arrived at between the
parties.
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
case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the
offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
CRR-2733-2022 & 5 2024:PHHC:039381
02 connected cases
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.
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 06.06.2014. The
petitioners have been facing protracted proceedings since last 10 years and they
are not involved in any other criminal after their conviction in the present case
and during the pendency of the present revision. Since their conviction, the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
CRR-2733-2022 & 6 2024:PHHC:039381
02 connected cases
petitioners have grown into a law-abiding citizens and desire to live a peaceful
life. Out of the total sentence of 03 years Ajaib Singh has already undergone a
period of 07 months and 09 days of his custody, Mehal Singh has already
undergone a period of 04 months and 06 days of his custody and Dalbir Singh
has already undergone a period of approximately 05 months of his custody.
Moreover, compromise has also been effected between the parties, copy of
which has also been placed on record. 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.
12. Accordingly, the judgment dated 16.11.2022 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, confirming the conviction of the petitioners
is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 28.03.2016 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 16.11.2022 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Karnal, confirming the conviction of the
petitioners is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
28.03.2016 is modified to the extent that the sentence of
Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years under Section 468
IPC, 02 years under Section 469 IPC and 03 years under
Section 471 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.1,300/-
imposed upon each of petitioners by the learned trial
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039381
CRR-2733-2022 & 7 2024:PHHC:039381
02 connected cases
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
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 19, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
