Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Lal Saini And Anr vs Rati Ram & Anr on 17 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007307
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M) -1-
218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.01.2025
SUNDER LAL SAINI AND ANOTHER
...Petitioners
V/S
RATI RAM AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Nariender Pal Nain, Advocate for
Mr. Tanvir Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 16.02.2011/17.02.2011 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa vide which the petitioners were
convicted under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code
and awarded substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year
with total fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default mechanism. In the appeal filed
against the aforesaid order, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra
vide judgment dated 05.11.2014 upheld the conviction passed by the trial
Court but modified the order of sentence to the effect that sentences
awarded to petitioners Sunder Lal Saini and Joginder Lal Saini were
reduced from one year to nine months period.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant was the owner in
possession of the land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint and said
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007307
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M) -2-
land was being irrigated and cultivated by the sons of complainant and said
land abuts to the killa line of the land of accused No.2. On 16.09.2001 at
about 10.30 a.m., when the son of complainant Ram Lal was working in his
fields, accused No.1-petitioner No. 1 Sunder Lal armed with a gandasi and
accused No. 2 to 5 armed with lathies came to the fields of complainant and
petitioner No.1 raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to the son of complainant
for not giving the land on lease to him and the son of complainant Ram Lal
requested the accused persons not to be furious and told the accused
persons that his father is not willing to give his land to petitioner No.1 on
lease, but accused persons did not listen the request of Ram Lal and they
started beating Ram Lal. Petitioner No.1 gave a gandasi blow which hit on
the left arm of Ram Lal and all other accused persons started giving lathi
blows on the person of Ram Lal which hit the lower lip, arms and legs of
Ram Lal. Ram Lal raised a hue and cry for help who was rescued by Nasib
Ram and by Parkash Puri whose land was also situated near the land of
complainant. All the accused persons further threatened Ram Lal that if he
will tell about the said incident to anyone or the police then he will be
finished. Thereafter, Ram Lal came to his house in a state of fear and later
on uncle of Ram Lal, Prem Chand took Ram Lal to P.H.C. Jhansa for
medical examination. The matter was reported to the police on the same
day but police in spite of taking any action against the accused persons due
to their political influence, had falsely implicated Ram Lal and eight other
persons in criminal case titled "State vs. Ram Lal etc. vide F.I.R. No.79
dated 16.9.2001". On 13.1.2004, the complainant came to know that all the
accused persons in collusion with each other had prepared a false, forged
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007307
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M) -3-
and fabricated receipt dated 10.6.2001 alleged to be executed by the
complainant in favour of petitioner No.1 written by accused No. 2 Joginder
Lal and signed by accused No. 3 and 4 as witnesses and in the said forged
receipt dated 10.06.2001. It has been shown that complainant had given his
land measuring 9 kanals on lease to petitioner No.1 w.e.f. 10.06.2001 to
10.6.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 12,375/-. Accused persons on the basis
of said forged receipt falsely implicated the sons of complainant and other
persons as genuine purported to be executed by the complainant by using
the said forged receipt in case FIR No.79 dated 16.09.2001 but the
complainant never put his thumb impression on the said alleged receipt and
said receipt is false, forged and fabricated and prepared by all the accused
persons in collusion with each other.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 05.11.2014 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra on merits and restricts his
prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence dated
05.11.2014 to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioners as they
have already undergone a period of 01 month and 09 days and not involved
in any other case.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioners on the ground that 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, they does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert
the fact that petitioners are not involved in any other case.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007307
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M) -4-
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
6. 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. Back-
ground 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 propor-
tionality 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 de-
terrent 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 noti-
cing 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.
7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007307
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M) -5-
judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has not assailed the judgment
of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua
modification of quantum of sentence.
8. Perusal of record indicates that complaint(supra) was
filed in the year 2004 and petitioners have has been suffering the agony of
trial since the last 20 years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioners
have undergone total sentence of 01 month and 09 days out of rigorous
imprisonment of nine months awarded to them and they are not involved in
any other case.
9. 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.
10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 05.11.2014 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra upholding the judgment of
conviction dated 16.02.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Pehowa is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
05.11.2014 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for nine months awarded to the petitioners is reduced
to the period of sentence already undergone by them.
(ii) Fine of Rs. 3,000/- imposed upon the petitioners is
enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners are directed to deposit the
amount of fine in the trial Court within one month from the date of
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007307
CRR-3678-2014 (O&M) -6-
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 simple imprisonment for one month.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
17.01.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
