Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sube Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004516
CRR-3056-2015 (O&M) -1-
260(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3056-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
SUBE SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Mohit Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG Haryana.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners
against the judgment dated 03.06.2015 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which judgment of conviction and order on
quantum of sentence dated 11.05.2012/14.05.2012 passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Assandh, have been upheld, vide which
petitioner has been convicted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for
one year with total fine of Rs. 1500/- was imposed with default mechanism.
2. Brief facts of the FIR No. 410 dated 10.9.2004 lodged by Smt.
Kamlesh, complainant are that she reported to the police through a
complaint that she was married with late Jasmer Singh, who died in the year
1991 and after his death, a Kareva marriage was performed by complainant
with brother of Jasmer Singh namely Salinder and since then she is residing
with Salinder. She further alleged that her father Nagina was owner of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004516
CRR-3056-2015 (O&M) -2-
agricultural land in village Jhimri Khera, situated within the revenue estate
of village Popra, Tehsil Assandh District Karnal. After the death of Nagina,
his agricultural land and other properties were inherited by Smt. Manohari
mother of complainant, Om Parkash, Bhim Suba, Balwan, Kaptan brothers
of complainant and Smt. Sikhsa and Murti sisters of complainant and
complainant herself having 1/8th share each. Accused persons, by hatching
a criminal conspiracy, sold the share of complainant and her two brothers
namely Balwan Singh and Kaptan Singh by impersonating them. Accused
Santosh impersonated the complainant, accused Subhash son of Maman
impersonated Balwan and accused Rajesh alias Jassa impersonated Kaptan
and all the accused persons by hatching conspiracy with each other alien-
ated the share of complainant and her two brothers Balwan and Kaptan and
played a fraud. All the accused persons at the time of execution and regis-
tration of the sale deed dated 29.5.2001 were knowing the fact that
complainant and her two brothers namely Balwan and Kaptan were owners
in possession over their respective shares. The accused persons affixed their
photographs on the sale deed including Santosh, Subhash and Rajesh and
they by executing the sale deed in favour of Sadhu Ram committed a
forgery with complainant and Balwan Singh and Kaptan Singh, whereas the
complainant and her brothers Balwan and Kaptan never intended to sell the
land of their shares. It was further alleged that on 25.07.2004 complainant
and her two brothers namely Balwan and Kaptan contacted Halqa Patwari
for taking copy of Jamabandi for the purpose of taking loan from bank and
then Halqa Patwari told them that the complainant and her aforesaid broth-
ers have already alienated their shares vide sale deed dated 29.05.2001 for a
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004516
CRR-3056-2015 (O&M) -3-
sale consideration of Rs.9000/- and a mutation has already been entered and
sanctioned dated 14.08.2011. The name of Sadhu Ram has already been in-
corporated in the jamabandi for the year 2001-02 in the column of owner-
ship. After coming to know about the fraud committed by the accused per-
sons by hatching a criminal conspiracy, the complainant and her brothers
convened a Panchayat in which her brother Krishan Lal was also present.
Accused persons had admitted their fault, but threatened the complainant
that in case she would report the matter to police or will take any action
against them, she would be done to death. The complainant then made com-
plaint to the police but no action was taken. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.06.2015 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal on merits and restricts his prayer
to modification of the order of quantum of sentence dated 14.05.2012 to
that of sentence already undergone by the petitioners as petitioner-Sube
Singh has already undergone a period of 03 months and 12 days,
petitioner-Bhima has undergone a period of 03 months and 15 days and
petitioner-Om Parkash has undergone 03 months and 02 days of custody.
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 do not deserve any leniency.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004516
CRR-3056-2015 (O&M) -4-
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the re-
cord 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:004516
CRR-3056-2015 (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 FIR(supra) was registered in
the year 2004 and the petitioners are facing the agony of trial since last 20
years. As per the custody certificate, petitioner-Sube Singh has already
undergone a period of 03 months and 12 days, petitioner-Bhima has
undergone a period of 03 months and 15 days and petitioner-Om Parkash
has undergone 03 months and 02 days of custody out of rigorous sentence
of one year awarded to them.
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 follow-
ing terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 03.06.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal upholding the judgment of
conviction dated 11.05.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judi-
cial Magistrate, Assandh is upheld, however, the order of sentence
dated 14.05.2012 is modified to the extent that substantive sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to the petitioners is
reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.
(ii) Fine of Rs. 1500/- each imposed upon the petitioners is
enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each. The petitioners are 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004516
CRR-3056-2015 (O&M) -6-
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)
14.01.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
