Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024019
CRR No.2290 of 2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
252
CRR No. 2290-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.02.2025
Gurmeet Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ludhiana, vide which judgment of conviction and order on
quantum of sentence dated 17.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in FIR No.82 dated 29.10.2012
registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304-A IPC at Police
Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana, have been upheld.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections
279, 337, 427 and 304A IPC and was ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
along with default mechanism.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.10.2012, Naginder
Kumar Singh, along with his wife Pooja Rani and brother-in-law Tinku
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024019
Kumar, was travelling on an Aterno scooter bearing No.PB-10BV-3968
from Metro Road towards Bachan Colony. At around 11:00 pm, when
they reached near Jamalpur Main Chowk on Chandigarh Road, an
Indica car coming from Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana, collided with their
scooter due to the driver's rash and negligent driving. As a result,
Naginder sustained injuries on his right foot and head, while Pooja
suffered head injuries and lost consciousness. Tinku, who was riding
pillion, also sustained injuries on his left foot and head. People gathered
at the spot and assisted the victims in moving to the side of the road.
Rajesh Kumar, Naginder's brother-in-law, arrived at the spot and took
them to Apollo Hospital. While Naginder was discharged, Pooja and
Tinku remained hospitalized. Later, Naginder learned that the Indica car
involved in the accident was registered as PB-10BP-0409 and the same
was driven by Gurmeet Singh. He subsequently recorded his statement
before the police and the FIR (supra) has been registered against the
accused.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2018 by the
learned trial Court, which have also been upheld by learned Lower
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.10.2024 on
merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum
of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024019
as he has already undergone a period of 03 months and 21 days and is
not involved in any other criminal activity.
6. 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 Appellate Court and
as such, he does 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024019
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 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 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 petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on
merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of
quantum of sentence.
10. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 29.10.2012 and
the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last 12
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
dated 18.02.2025, the petitioner is not involved in any other case and
has undergone total sentence of 03 months and 21 days, out of total
sentence of 01 year in the instant case.
11. 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.
12. Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in
the following terms:-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024019
(i) The judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, affirming the
judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2018 is upheld,
however, the order of sentence of even date, 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.1,000/- imposed
upon the petitioner by the learned trial Court is increased
to Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the
amount of fine before the learned trial Court within 01
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 simple imprisonment for 01 month.
13. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
19.02.2025
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
