Punjab-Haryana High Court
Farat Ali vs State Of Haryana on 10 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065520
CRA-S-1853-SB-2003
CRA-S-1729-SB-2003 -1-
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 10.05.2024
1. CRA-S-1853-SB-2003 (O&M)
Farat Ali
... Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
... Respondent
2. CRA-S-1729-SB-2003 (O&M)
Dinesh @ Pinchu and others
... Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-1853-SB-2003).
Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
for the appellants (in CRA-S-1729-SB-2003).
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
*******
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 16:01:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065520
CRA-S-1853-SB-2003
CRA-S-1729-SB-2003 -2-
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals
arising out of FIR No.22 dated 11.01.2020 under Sections 307, 324, 323,
148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'), registered at Police Station Saran,
District Faridabad, preferred against the judgment of conviction dated
25.08.2003 and the order of sentence dated 27.08.2003 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
2. The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections
148, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and were ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a total fine of
Rs.4,000/- along with default mechanism.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Devender @ Bablu, resident
of NIT, Faridabad was a student of B.Com 1st year at Delhi University. On
10.01.2000, he along with his friends Sanjay and Roopesh went to a dhaba to
take meal and at about 09.30 p.m., when they were taking meal, Dinesh @
Pinchu along with two other persons came there and asked Roopesh to take
meal for them. When the complainant objected to it, some altercation took
place between them and thereafter, Dinesh @ Pinchu along with his
companions left the dhaba, but after some time, they along with 8-10 persons
came there in a three-wheeler and Dinesh @ Pinchu gave two knife blows to
Roopesh and one another person gave him fist blows. When complainant
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065520
CRA-S-1853-SB-2003
Devender @ Bablu and Sanjay tried to save Roopesh, two assailants caught
hold of Sanjay and one of them attacked him with a knife, which hit on his
neck on the right side. Thereafter, two young persons caught hold of the
complainant and one of them gave him knife blows from his back, one blow
hit on his left side and another blow of knife hit on his left arm and cheek. In
the meantime, Yashpal and Sudesh Rana rescued them and thereafter, the
complainant, Roopesh and Sanjay were admitted to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad
by Rajesh son of Brij Nandan. On the statement of Devender @ Bablu,
formal FIR was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, in their respective cases,
contend that they are not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 25.08.2003 on merits and restrict the prayer to modification of the
order of quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by
the appellants, as appellant Farat Ali has already undergone a period of 02
months and 29 days, appellant Dinesh @ Pinchu has already undergone 03
months and 03 days, appellant Sonu Kumar has already undergone 01 month
and 28 days, appellant Suneel @ Pappu has already undergone 01 month and
19 days and appellant Jagdish @ Jhaggar has already undergone 01 month
and 08 days and they are not involved in any other criminal activity.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
appellants, as learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, they do
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065520
CRA-S-1853-SB-2003
not deserve any leniency.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. 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, the 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 Vs. 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065520
CRA-S-1853-SB-2003
conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and
the chances of reformation of the accused.
9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by 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 appellants have not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather
they have restricted the prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
10. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 11.01.2000 and the
appellants have been suffering the agony of trial since the last 24 years.
Since their conviction, the appellants have grown into a law-abiding citizen
and desire to live a peaceful life. As per their custody certificates dated
07/08.05.2024, the appellants are not involved in any other case and have
undergone the sentence as stated above.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
12. Consequently, both the appeals are disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 25.08.2003 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad is upheld, however, the order of
sentence dated 27.08.2003 is modified to the extent that the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years along with
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065520
CRA-S-1853-SB-2003
default mechanism awarded to the appellants is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by them.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.4,000/- each imposed
upon the appellants by learned trial Court is increased to
Rs.8,000/- each. The appellants are directed to deposit the
increased amount of fine in learned trial Court within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellants will be
liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
13. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
10.05.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
