Binder Singh @ Kairon vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 3808 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Binder Singh @ Kairon vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 2025

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043169




226-1      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
                                                    CRR-1907-2011
                                                    Date of decision: 28.03.2025
BINDER SINGH @ KAIRON
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                           V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                             ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:      Ms Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate as amicus curiae for the petitioner.
              Ms.
              Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
              Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the complainant.
                    ****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment

dated 17.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide

which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated

24.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, have

been upheld,, qua the petitioner, in case stemming from FIR No. No.334 dated

24.06.2000 registered under Sections 326/324/323/506/427/34 of IPC at Police

Station Lambra, Jalandhar have been upheld and the petitioner was sentenced

as under :-

Offence under Section(s)      Sentence

326 IPC                       RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/
                                                             Rs.500/-, in default

of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 01 month. 324 IPC RI for 01 year.

324/34 IPC RI for 01 year.

It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 24.06.2000,

complainant Pal Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he along

with his wife was coming to their village Chitti, in his car. At about 8:30 AM,

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043169

CRR-1907-2011

when they reached near Lambra, Binder Singh @ Karion (petitioner herein),

Manjit Singh @ Jitti both armed with kirpan,, Makhan Singh armed with datar

and Sucha Singh empty handed came in their tractor and stopped their passage

and gave beatings to the complainant on various parts of his body. When

complainant omplainant and his wife raised noise, two persons, namely, Harbans Singh

and Sewa Ram came at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled

away from the spot. Hence, the FIR (supra) ( ) was registered.

3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned trial

Court, which have ha also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court vide

judgment dated 17.08.2011.

4. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioner inter alia contends the

injury, on the basis of which, the petitioner has been convicted, is on the finger

of right hand of the complainant, the nature and extent of which clearly

indicates that it is a self-suffered self injury.. Further, the learned Courts below

have fallen into grave grave error by convicting the petitioner, only on the basis of

the fact that the aforementioned injury has been declared grievous in nature

and there is a delay of 18 hours in registration of FIR ((supra). Furthermore,

the case set up by the prosecution is highly highly improbable, as per the allegation

that the injury was inflicted by the injured, who was sitting in the car. Lastly,

she submits that as per his custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone

actual period of 27 days, out of total sentence of two years, awarded by

learned trial Court and is not involved in any other case.

5. Per contra, contra learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the

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

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043169

CRR-1907-2011

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.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

the record with their able assistance, it transpires th that the petitioner was

convicted under Sections 326/324/34 IPC and as as per his custody certificate, he

has already undergone an actual period of 27 days, out of total sentence of two

years, in the instant case.

case The petitioner is not involved in any other cas case.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 257, a Three

Judge Bench ench 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 C 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 y 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.

8. Further, a two Judge Bench 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 opportunities

of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043169

CRR-1907-2011

evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of

the crime, the he 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.

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. However, the FIR

(supra)) was lodged on 24.06.2000 and the petitioner has been suffering the

agony of trial for last more than 24 years. Since his conviction, he has grown

into a law-abiding abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the

interest of justice, if the sentence sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

11. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of and the

judgment dated 17.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Jalandhar, affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order

of sentence dated 24.02.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.

Rs.500/- along with default

mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence

already undergone by him.

12. The High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay

remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as per rules.

(HARPREET HARPREET SINGH BRAR BRAR) March 28, 2025 5 JUDGE manisha

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4