Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sat Pal Saini vs Rati Ram & Anr on 17 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006936
CRR-3788-2014 (O&M) -1-
218(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3788-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.01.2025
SATPAL SAINI
...Petitioner
V/S
RATI RAM AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
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 05.11.2014 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which judgment of conviction and order
on quantum of sentence dated 16.02.2011/17.02.2011 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa has been upheld vide which the
petitioner was 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.
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
land was being irrigated and cultivated by the sons of complainant and said
land abuts to the killa line of the land of co-accused Joginder Lal Saini. On
16.09.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., when the son of complainant Ram Lal was
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006936
CRR-3788-2014 (O&M) -2-
working in his fields, co-accused-Sunder Lal Saini armed with a gandasi
and accused No. 2 to 5 armed with lathies came to the fields of complainant
and accused-Sunder Lal Saini 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
accused-Sunder Lal Saini on lease, but accused persons did not listen the
request of Ram Lal and they started beating Ram Lal. Accused-Sunder Lal
Saini 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 any-
one 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 repor-
ted 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 im-
plicated 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 com-
plainant came to know that all the accused persons in collusion with each
other had prepared a false, forged and fabricated receipt dated 10.6.2001 al-
leged to be executed by the complainant in favour of accused-Sunder Lal
Saini written by accused Joginder Lal and signed by accused No. 3 and 4 as
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006936
CRR-3788-2014 (O&M) -3-
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
accused-Sunder Lal Saini 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 petitioner 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
17.02.2011 to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has
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
petitioner 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 petitioner is not involved in any other case.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:006936
CRR-3788-2014 (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:006936
CRR-3788-2014 (O&M) -5-
judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
Moreover, 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.
8. Perusal of record indicates that complaint(supra) was
filed in the year 2004 and petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial
since the last 20 years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has
undergone total sentence of 01 month and 09 days out of rigorous
imprisonment of one year awarded to him and he is 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 petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
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
17.02.2011 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for one year awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
(ii) Fine of Rs. 3,000/- imposed upon the petitioner is
enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner is 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:006936
CRR-3788-2014 (O&M) -6-
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 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
