Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh Toor vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039555
2024:PHHC:039555
237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-364-2016 (O & M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
BALWINDER SINGH TOOR
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Devansh Khanna, Advocate and
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Komaljit Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate
for complainant.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
14.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide
which, judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated
07.10.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in FIR
No.118 dated 27.04.2010 filed under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of IPC
registered at Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar, has been upheld. The
petitioner was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
Section 279 IPC RI 06 months and a fine of Rs.100/-,
in default of which RI of 15 days
Section 337 IPC RI 03 months and a fine of Rs.100/-,
in default of which RI of 15 days
Section 338 IPC RI 01 year and a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default of which RI of 01 month
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039555
CRR-364-2016 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:039555
Section 427 IPC RI 06 months and a fine of Rs.100/-,
in default of which RI of 15 days
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 25.04.2010, on receiving
information regarding the injuries of Sarabwant Singh, Kulwant Kaur and
Abhijot Singh in an accident and their admission in Sacred Heart Hospital, ASI
Sukhbir Singh went to hospital, where concerned doctor has informed him that
patient Sarabjit Singh has left the hospital against medical advice and patients
Kulwant Kaur and Abhijot Singh were discharged after giving first aid to them.
On 27.04.2010, HC Kulbir Singh was present at police station, where he was
informed by concerned MHC that legal heirs of Sarabjit Singh gave him
information regarding his admission in Joshi Hospital, upon which HC Kulbir
Singh went to Joshi Hospital and got recorded statement of Sarabjit Singh to
the effect that he is doing the private job of Administrative Operation Manager
at Kapsons Mall, Mall Road, Amritsar. On 25.04.2010 he was going to his
work from his home at Jalandhar to Amritsar in his Maruti Car No. PB08-
3399. At about 10.15 AM when he reached near ITBP complex then one Swift
car bearing No. PB08-AH-Temp-9233 came from Kartarpur side in a very high
speed, driving by one Sardar driver, later on came to know as Balwinder Singh
(petitioner herein) has struck his car into car of complainant, due to which, his
car turned towards Jalandhar side. He has received serious injuries. He has also
received multiple injuries on his left leg and other parts of body and his car was
also damaged. Several people gathered at the spot, pulled him from the car.
The officials who were on patrolling duty on the Highway got admitted him in
Sacred Heart Hospital, from where his family members got admitted him at
Joshi Hospital. On his statement, ruqa was sent for the formal registration of
FIR. During investigation, investigating officer prepared site plan of the spot,
recorded statement of witnesses, took the offending car bearing No.PB08-AH-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039555
CRR-364-2016 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:039555
Temp-9233 and car bearing No.PB08-3399 along with its papers in its
possession and got the same mechanically examined. Petitioner was arrested in
the present case and on completion of formalities of investigation, report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., was prepared and forwarded to the Court.
3. The petitioner was convicted vide judgement dated 07.10.2015 by
the learned trial Court, which has also been upheld by lower Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 14.01.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2015 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 as he has already undergone a
period of 19 days.
5. 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 Appellant Court and as such, he does 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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039555
CRR-364-2016 (O & M) 4 2024:PHHC:039555
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.
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
petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has
restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 27.04.2010 and the
petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial since the last 14
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, he has
undergone actual sentence of 19 days out of total sentence of 01 year 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 petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039555
CRR-364-2016 (O & M) 5 2024:PHHC:039555
11. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, affirming the judgment of
conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
07.10.2015 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 01 year 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.500/-
imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court is increased to
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 petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and
made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
12. 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
5 of 5
