Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirorimal vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041313
2024:PHHC:041313
CRR-1504-2015 1
229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-1504-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
KIRORIMAL
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate
for Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment
dated 23.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul
vide which judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated
04.03.2014 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Mohindergarh in FIR No. 282 dated 19.10.2008 registered at Police Station
Kanina District Narnaul has been upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as
under:
Period of Sentence
Offences under Sections
Rigorous Imprisonment for
279 six months
Rigorous Imprisonment for
304-A one year
2. In brief, facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.10.2008 when
HC Janak Singh alongwith other police officials was returning from CHC,
Mohindergarh to Police Station, Kanina after recording the statement of
Budh Ram son of Jhuthar, resident of village Bhagdana and was present at
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041313
2024:PHHC:041313
Guda bus stand, then he received a telephonic message from MHC, Police
Station, Kanina regarding admission of Rajiv son of Krishan, resident of
village Aghiyar in CHC, Mohindergarh having been injured in a road side
accident. Upon which HC Janak Singh alongwith other police officials
reached at CHC, Mohindergarh where he was found to have been referred to
SMS, Jaipur by the doctor and thereafter he reached at the spot near village
Aghiyar where eye witness Surender @ Ranjit met him who got recorded
his statement to the effect that on 19.10.2008 at 12.00 O'clock he alongwith
his cousin Rajiv was going from their fields to their house and when they
crossed periphery (bani) of village then a commander jeep being driven in a
rash and negligent manner came and hit his cousin Rajiv directly whereas
he escaped very hardly. After hitting his cousin jeep driver stopped his jeep
on road where stones were laid down. On being noticed registration number
was found IIC-35-8560. The driver was driving his jeep in a rush and
negligent manner. When the driver started to flee away then the passengers
boarded in it got jeep stopped but the driver fled away. His cousin sustained
grievous injuries on his head as well as on foot. After arranging private
vehicle he was brought to CHC, Mohindergarh from there due to serious
injuries he was referred to SMS, Jaipur and his cousin Rajiv was brought to
hospital by his brother Krishan and Munni Lal. Legal action was sought
against the accused.
3. The petitioners were convicted vide judgement dated 04.03.2014
by the learned trial Court which has also been upheld by lower appellate
Court on 23.04.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2015 on merits
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041313
2024:PHHC:041313
and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence
to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners as have already
undergone a period of 02 months and 09 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 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
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041313
2024:PHHC:041313
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/appellant has not assailed the judgment of convic-
tion on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sen-
tence.
9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 19.10.2008 and the
petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last 16 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 02 months
and 09 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 petitioners are reduced to
the period already undergone by them.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Narnaul affirming the judgment of conviction is
upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 04.03.2014 is modified
to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioners is reduced to
the period of sentence already undergone by him.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041313
2024:PHHC:041313
(ii) Fine to the tune of Rs. 10000/- is imposed upon the petitioner.
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)
21.03.2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
