Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039421
2024:PHHC:039421
243-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 19.03.2024
1. CRR-3065-2019
RAJESH KUMAR
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
2. CRR-2237-2019
NACHHATTAR SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
3. CRR-3136-2019
GULZAR SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Harveet Singh Sehgal, Advocate
for petitioner in CRR-3065-2019.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR-2237 of 2019.
None for the petitioner
in CRR-3136-2019.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
****
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:039421
CRR-3065-2019 & 2 2024:PHHC:039421
02 connected cases
brevity, facts are borrowed from CRR-3065 of 2019 titled as Rajesh Kumar vs.
State of Punjab.
2. These revisions have been preferred against the judgment dated
20.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2017
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dera Bassi, in case bearing FIR
No.155 dated 25.08.2013 registered under Sections 279, 283, 304-A of IPC at
Police Station Lalru, was upheld. The petitioners were sentenced as under: -
Petitioner Offence under Sentence
Section
1. Nachattar Singh 283 IPC fine of Rs.200/- each, in default
of which SI of 01 day.
304-A IPC 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of which SI of 03 days.
2.Gulzar Singh 283 IPC fine of Rs.200/-, in default of
which SI of 01 day.
304-A IPC 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of which SI of 03 days.
3.Rajesh Kumar 279 IPC 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of which SI of 3 days.
304-A IPC 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of which SI of 03 days.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly, the facts are that an information was received on
25.08.2013, regarding admission of Krishan Chand son of Jeona Ram and
Gulzar Singh (petitioner herein) son of Mangal Singh in Civil Hospital,
Derabassi and on the same day, after receiving the information HC Gurnam
Singh, HC Sarat Chander, C Harbhan Singh and PHG Suraj Pal reached at
Civil Hospital, Dera bassi. Complainant Raj Kumar recorded his statement to
the police. As per the version of complainant, he is resident of Village
Sarangpur, PS Handesra, Lalru S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and is having agency of
two wheeler with the name and style of Prince Automobile, of Hero company,
near bus stand Handesra. He stated that last night at about 12.15 AM, driver of
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039421
CRR-3065-2019 & 3 2024:PHHC:039421
02 connected cases
vehicle bearing No.HR38L8001, came to him after taking delivery of two-
wheeler from Mohali via Ambala, who parked his vehicle in front of his
agency and while stepping down from the driver seat, he was standing on the
road. In the meantime, a truck bearing No.HR123595 stopped on the road near
to his agency, whose driver was asking about the way from the driver, who
came to him for taking delivery, in the meantime, a motorcycle bearing
No.HR04A9527 came from Ambala side, who stopped on his side then from
Ambala side a car bearing No.HR04D1051 came at a very high speed with rash
and negligent manner and hit the driver of motorcycle who along with his
motorcycle fell on the back side of truck bearing No.HP123595 and then driver
of the car hit his car with the driver of truck bearing No.HR123595 and then hit
the patrol tank of the truck. After the occurrence, he came to know that the
name of driver of the motorcycle bearing No.HR04A9527 Make CT100 was
Krishan Chand son of Jeona Ram R/o Village Jatwar ,PS Panjokhra Sahib,
District Ambala, who received serious injuries and the driver of the truck
bearing No.HR38L8001 is Gulzar Singh (petitioner herein) son of Mangal
Singh R/o Batala, District Gurdaspur, also received injuries and driver of car
enlightened from his vehicle. On asking, he disclosed his name as Rajesh
Kumar Gupta (petitioner herein) son of Naresh Kumar R/o House No.326,
Ward No.4, Naraingarh, Ambala and the driver of Truck bearing No.HP123595
disclosed his name as Nachattar Singh (petitioner herein) son of Sher Singh
R/o Village Karanpur, PS Pinjore, Panchkula. After arranging the vehicle
Krishan Chand and Gulzar Singh (petitioner herein) were brought to Civil
Hospital, Derabassi. Upon reaching Krishan Chand was brought to be dead and
Gulzar Singh (petitioner herein) was admitted in the hospital for his treatment.
After completion of the Police investigation, the challan in the present case FIR
was filed against the petitioners.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039421
CRR-3065-2019 & 4 2024:PHHC:039421
02 connected cases
3. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 279, 283
and 304-A 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 did not examine any witness in
order to prove their innocence.
4. On assessing all the material available on record, the learned trial
Court vide judgment dated 19.07.2017 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 20.08.2019.
CONTENTIONS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they are not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2017 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 Rajesh Kumar has already
undergone a period of 11 months of his custody, Nachhatar Singh has already
undergone a period of 11 months and 05 days of his custody and Gulzar Singh
has already undergone a period of 09 months and 28 days of his custody.
Learned counsel further submit that the petitioners have reformed and intend to
live their life as law-abiding citizens.
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.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039421
CRR-3065-2019 & 5 2024:PHHC:039421
02 connected cases
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
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 realize 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.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039421
CRR-3065-2019 & 6 2024:PHHC:039421
02 connected cases
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 25.08.2013. The
petitioners have been facing protracted proceedings since more than 10 years
and they are not involved in any other criminal activity after their conviction in
the present case and during the pendency of the present revision. Since their
conviction, the petitioners have grown into a law-abiding citizens and desire to
live a peaceful life. Out of the total sentence of 02 years Rajesh Kumar has
already undergone a period of 11 months of his custody, Nachhatar Singh has
already undergone a period of 11 months and 05 days of his custody and
Gulzar Singh has already undergone a period of 9 months and 28 days of his
custody. 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 20.08.2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, confirming the conviction of
the petitioners is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 19.07.2017 is
modified to the extent 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: -
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039421
CRR-3065-2019 & 7 2024:PHHC:039421
02 connected cases
(i) The judgments dated 20.08.2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, confirming the
conviction of the petitioners is upheld, however, the order
of sentence dated 19.07.2017 is modified to the extent
that the sentence of 02 years under Section 304-A IPC
IPC and 06 months under Section 279 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.1,000/-
imposed upon each of petitioners by the learned trial
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
