Deep Singh vs State Of Haryana
2025 Latest Caselaw 625 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Deep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 January, 2025

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001238




240        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRR-2856-2011
                                                 Date of decision: 08.01.2025
DEEP SINGH
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                         V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:    Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate and
            Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.
                  ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment

dated 01.09.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which,,

judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 03.01.2011

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind in case bearing

FIR No.200 200 dated 09.08.2006 registered under Section Sections 279/337/338/304-A A

IPC at Police Station Julana have been upheld.

2. The petitioner was sentenced as under:

Offence                   Sentence

279 IPC                   RI for 06 months with a fine of Rs.500/
                                                          Rs.500/- in default

of payment of fine to undergo RI for 01 month. 337 IPC RI for 06 months with a fine of Rs.500/ Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 01 month. 304-A IPC RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/ Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 03 months.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR against the accused was

registered after the statement of complainant Smt. Vijya Kumari was recorded

wherein she alleged that on 08.08.2006 8.2006 about 66:30 AM, she alongwith her

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001238

CRR-2856-2011

husband M.N. Vijayan and daughter Vidhya was going in a Maruti aruti car bearing

no.HR-29N-0725 0725 from Faridabad to Jind in connection with admission of her

daughter in Engineering College, Jind. Her husband Vijayan was driving the

car. When they reached near bus stand Village illage Pauli, a truck driven rashly and

negligently by the driver came from the side of Jind and dashed against the

Maruti car, due to which, the car got turned towards the side of Rohtak and the

occupants sitting in the car received injuries. Driver of the truck fled from the

spot whereas her husband succumbed to the injuri injuries. She along with her

daughter received injuries upon their person.

4. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and

order dated 03.01.2011 passed by learned trial Court Court, which has also been

upheld by learned lower Appellate Court ourt vide judgment dated 01.09.2011.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing

the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.01.2011 on merits and restricts

his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the

sentence already undergone by the petitioner. Petitioner has undergone a total

period of 01 year and 04 days, including remission and is not involved in any

other case.

6. Per contra, contra learned State counsel opposes the prayer er of the

petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a well well-reasoned reasoned judgment based on

correct appreciation of evidence available on record record, which has also been

upheld by the learned lower Appellate Appellat 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 v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 257, a Three hree

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001238

CRR-2856-2011

Judge Bench ench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of

sentence is not a mere 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, 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

v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, 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 opportun opportunities ities 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 alance 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 evidenc available on record. Moreover, learned earned 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 09.08.2006 and the

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001238

CRR-2856-2011

petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial for more than 18

years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into law-abiding abiding citizen

and desire to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not

involved in any other case and has undergone total sentence of 01 year and 04

days, including remission out of total sentence of one 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 tence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

12. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the following

terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 01.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Jind, affirming ng the judgment of conviction is upheld,

however, the order of sentence dated 03.01.2011 is modified to the

extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 02 yearss

along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced

to the period of sentence already undergone by him subject to the

fine of an amount of Rs.10,000/-

                                  Rs.         upon the petitioner.

             (ii)           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.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) January 08, 2025 202 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4