Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039445
2024:PHHC:039445
238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-791-2017
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
BALJIT SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Navjot Narang and Himmat Vohra, Advocates
for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
18.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide which,
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 21.10.2015
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga in case bearing
FIR No.100 dated 01.07.2010 registered under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338,
427 IPC at Police Station Sadar Moga, has been upheld. The petitioner was
sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
Section 279 IPC RI for 06 months
Section 304-A IPC RI for 02 years with a fine of
Rs.2000/-, in default of which to
undergo 02 months
2. The FIR was registered on the allegations that on 01.07.2010, AS1
Bhupinder Singh alongwith other police officials was going towards village
Ghal Kalan. Ratian, Dune Ke, Dhalle Ke in connection with police patrolling
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039445
CRR-791-2017 2 2024:PHHC:039445
and when the police party reached near Bus Stand Ghal Kalan, near Petrol
Pump, Davinder Kumar got his statement recorded to the effect that he is doing
a private job. On 30.06.2010, he was accompanying his friend Ranjit Singh and
his brother Gurmeet Singh on Maruti Car bearing No. PB-03A-0108 and they
were going towards village Dagru. As they crossed the canal minor near the
Nestle Dairy, one truck came from the Ferozepur side in a zig zag manner,
rashly and negligently driven and driver of the truck bearing No.RJ-14-11-
5651 collided against their car. He along with Gurmeet Singh raised alarm. The
driver of the truck disclosed his name as Baljit Singh (petitioner herein). They
started taking care of Ranjit Singh but the driver in the meantime fled away
from the spot. The chowkidar of Nestle came, who called up the police. He
along with Ranjit Singh sustained injuries and they were hospitalized. Ranjit
Singh however expired. The car had also got damaged. Accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck.
3. The appellant was convicted vide judgement dated 21.10.2015
passed by the learned trial Court, which has also been upheld by lower
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.02.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2015 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 01 year, 08 months and 26 days and is not involved in any other
criminal activity.
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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039445
CRR-791-2017 3 2024:PHHC:039445
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
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. Learned counsel for the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039445
CRR-791-2017 4 2024:PHHC:039445
petitioner/appellant 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 01.07.2010 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 is not
involved in any other case and has undergone actual sentence of 01 year, 05
months and 06 days out of total sentence of 02 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 petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 18.02.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga affirming the judgment of
conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
21.10.2015 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 02 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.2,000/-
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 petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and
made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039445
CRR-791-2017 5 2024:PHHC:039445
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
