Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 20 November, 2025
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
Pawan Kumar
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of U.T. Chandigarh
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate, (Legal-Aid-Counsel),
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Addl. P.P. U.T. Chandigarh.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.(Oral)
1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2010 passed
by the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh,
whereby the revisionist- petitioner has been convicted for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") in case arising out of FIR No.100
1 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
dated 06.04.2006, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police
Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, as well as judgment dated 21.08.2012 passed
by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which
appeal filed by the revisionist-petitioner bearing Criminal Appeal No. RBT
203 dated 21.05.2010/24.04.2012 has been dismissed and the revisionist-
petitioner has been sentenced as under:-
Offence under Sentence
Section
279 IPC Convict shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months
and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of
payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
304-A IPC Convict shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year six
months and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default
of payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case had been registered on the statement given to the police
by one Rikhi Ram who was working as cleaner on truck bearing No. HR-38-
D-6497. The said truck was owned by one Moti Lal, who also used to drive
the said truck himself. On 06.04.2006, both Moti Lal and Rikhi Ram had come
from Hamirpur to Chandigarh for unloading and loading of goods. After
unloading the truck, both of them came to Transport area, Billing Roadlines,
plot no. 14 to load goods. Since goods were to be loaded the next morning,
they both parked the truck in the parking opposite to plot no. 13. At about
10:00 PM, after taking their meals, Moti Lal, Rikhi Ram and their other
2 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
companion driver Mohinder Kumar were going to sleep in their truck. Moti
Lal was walking ahead of his other two companions. When they reached near
J.B. Union, one vehicle of mark TATA-1109, being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, came from behind from the side of plot no. 13 and hit Moti
Lal from the backside. Due to this, Moti Lal fell on the ground. Thereafter,
the said offending vehicle ran over of the head of Moti Lal. The vehicle then
stopped after some distance. The vehicle was bearing registration no. PB-12-
G-4752. The driver of the said offending vehicle alighted from the vehicle and
came towards Rikhi Ram and Mohinder Kumar. They found that the head of
Moti Lal was crushed and he died at the spot. On enquiry, the driver of the
offending truck disclosed his name as Pawan Kumar son of Rattan Chand,
resident of Hamirpur.
3. On receipt of information about the accident, Assistant Sub-
Inspector Gurdial Singh of Police Post Sector 26, Chandigarh came to the spot
and found the dead body of Moti Lal, whose head had been crushed, lying in
the vacant space opposite to plot no. 13. Complainant Rikhi Ram met
Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh and got recorded his statement to the
above effect, which led to the registration of the First Information Report.
Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. After
completion of inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent for post-mortem
examination, which was carried out at Government Medical College and
Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The offending vehicle bearing no. PB-12-G-
4752 was taken into police possession. The accused was arrested. The matter
was thoroughly investigated and statement of the witnesses were recorded.
3 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned Court
for trial.
4. Upon appearance, complete copies of challan as envisaged under
section 207 Cr. P.C. were supplied to the accused/petitioner.
5. From the material placed on the record, a prima facie case
punishable under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was found to have been made out
and accordingly charges were framed against the accused/petitioner to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the
following six witnesses, and closed its evidence vide order dated 28.01.2010:
PW-1 Rikhi Ram (Complainant)
PW-2 Head Constable Shiv Kumar
PW-3 Des Raj (Father of Deceased)
PW-4 Sub-Inspector Gurdial Singh (Investigating Officer)
PW-5 Harleen Puri, Junior Assistant, Office of DTO Ropar
PW-6 Dr. Rakhi, Senior Resident, PGI
7. The statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating
circumstances and evidence appearing on record were put to him. The
petitioner denied the same and claimed himself to be innocent. However, no
witness was examined by the petitioner in his defence.
8. After hearing the case and considering the arguments advanced
by both sides, the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence placed on record,
4 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.05.2010, held the petitioner
guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A and vide order
on quantum of sentence dated 06.05.2010, accordingly sentenced him as
stated above.
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on
quantum of sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. RBT 203
dated 21.05.2010/24.04.2012 before the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. However, vide judgment dated 21.08.2012, the
said appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence.
Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been preferred.
10. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The instant
appeal pertains to the year 2012, further wait is unjustified. Hence, it is
deemed appropriate to appoint a legal aid counsel to assist this Court on behalf
of the petitioner. Accordingly, Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate, who is
present in the Court is nominated as legal-aid-counsel to represent the
petitioner in the present case and to assist this Court after going through the
Court file.
11. Legal Aid Counsel has gone through the case file. She submits
that both the learned Courts have erred in not appreciating the discrepancies
emerging from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. She further
submits that the accident in question had taken place in the parking area and,
as such, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner
is highly improbable. It is further submitted by the learned Legal Aid Counsel
that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and death was caused as a
5 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
result of his falling on his own. The counsel submits that the both the learned
Courts have wrongly relied upon the evidence led by the prosecution as
careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the witnesses do not inspire any
confidence.
12. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
evidence led before the learned Trial Court has already been considered by it
as well as by the learned Appellate Court and that finding on conviction has
been upheld by both the learned Courts below.
13. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and have also gone through the judgments passed by both the learned Courts
below.
14. Before proceeding further into the matter, it is apposite to make
a reference to the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court. The
relevant part thereof reads thus:-
"10. The counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that the
accident had taken place in the parking in the transport area and
it would not be possible to drive the vehicle in a rash manner at
such a place. It is also argued that there were pits in the area and
deceased fell down in one of such pits while being under the
influence of liquor and was run over by his own truck or some
other vehicle as there was no question of offending vehicle
running over the head of deceased being coming from behind. It
is also argued that there is solitary statement made by Rikhi Ram,
who has stated that they had come to the spot after taking meals
from a dhabha, which means that the deceased had taken liquor
and under the influence of liquor he fell down.
6 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
11. The deceased was owner as well as driver of truck No. HR-
38-D-6496. PW-1 Rikhi Ram was working as a cleaner on said
truck. The truck was parked in front of plot NO.14 in the
transport area. PW-1 has stated that at about 9.40 pm, he
alongwith Moti Lal and Mohinder Singh had gone for taking
dinner at some distance and after half an hour, they were going
back, when Moti Lal was ahead of them at a distance of 20-25
feet. The offending truck came from behind being driven in a rash
negligent manner and said truck hit against Moti Lal from his
backside and as a result thereof Moti Lal fell down and was run
over by said truck due to which head of Moti Lal was totally
crushed. The witness identified the accused to be the person, who
was driving the offending truck and stated that accused had
disclosed his name at the spot as Pawan Kumar.
12. In cross-examination, he stated that they had taken dinner at
a temporary dhaba, which did not bear any specific name and
they had been regularly visiting said dhaba as and when they
come to Chandigarh. The witness further stated that they did not
take liquor on the date of accident though they used to take liquor
earlier. He also stated that Moti Lal was going ahead by 25 feet
as the witness was paying the money for food. He also stated that
there was no proper light at the place, where the accident took
place. The speed of the truck was 30-40 kmph and stated that it
was an open area for the parking of the vehicles, where the
accident had occurred. He also stated that the deceased was run
over by the front tyre of the truck and stated that there was a pit,
where the deceased fell and also accident took place. He further
stated that after hitting of the truck, deceased was pushed to the
pit. He also stated that when he saw the offending truck having
7 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
jumped, he ran towards the place of occurrence to see what had
happened.
13. The statement as made by PW-1 inspires confidence that
witness has given truthful version. Simply because the deceased
fell down in a pit after hitting with the truck, it cannot be said
that he was not hit by the offending truck or was run over by some
other truck. No such evidence has come on file that any other
truck was involved in causing the accident. No such defence has
been led by the accused. Even no suggestion was put to PW-1
that the deceased was run over by some other truck.
14. There is no evidence that the deceased was under the
influence of liquor. As per postmortem report, there was a crush
injury present over the face and head with multiple skull bones
fractured. The brain substance was found protruding out through
fractured areas. Right eye was completely crushed and left eye
was partially crushed. Multiple nasal bone fractures were found.
Upper and lower jaw bones found fractured at multiple places.
This injury could be caused only if the deceased was run over by
a heavy substance, which in the present case was the offending
truck. The cause of death is given as cranio-cerebral damage
consequent upon blunt force impact to the body. PW-6 Dr. Rakhi
had conducted the postmortem examination, who has stated in
cross-examination that blood samples of the deceased were not
taken for further examination to see whether there were any
alcoholic contents in the blood or not.
15. There is specific evidence that the deceased had been hit from
behind by the offending truck and its front side had hit against
the deceased, who fell down and was run over by the truck. There
8 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by PW-1. The
photographs of the place of occurrence, the offending truck and
the dead body have been proved on record as Exhibit PW4/1 to
PW4/8. Exhibit PW4/8, the offending truck is seen
standing/parked at some distance from the dead body. There are
blood stains on the ground in the direction of the offending
vehicle. Blood had also fallen on the tyre of the vehicle as visible
in photograph Exhibit PW4/7. There was heavy bleeding of blood
from the head of the deceased, which was totally crushed in the
accident, as visible in photographs Exhibit PW4/2, PW4/5 and
PW4/6. Keeping in view the nature of the injury, falling of blood
on the tyre of the offending truck cannot be ruled out.
16. In view of the discussion made above, it is held that there is
no merit in the appeal. The charge stood duly proved against the
appellant-accused and there is no reason to differ with the
findings as recorded by the learned trial Court. The conviction
and sentence order passed against appellant/accused are
accordingly upheld. The appeal is dismissed. The accused is
ordered to be taken in custody to undergo the sentence awarded
to him by the learned trial Court. The record of the learned trial
Court be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to the record room."
15. It is thus evident from the aforestated findings that the
submissions made by the learned Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the
petitioner have already been taken into consideration by the learned Appellate
Court and dealt with on the strength of the evidence already on record. It has
also been specifically recorded by the learned Appellate Court that no
evidence has been led by the accused/petitioner on record to show that the
9 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
deceased was under the influence of liquor. It has been clearly established
from the postmortem examination report, proved on record as PW4/E, that
there was crush injury present over the face and head of the deceased with
multiple skull bones fractured. It has also been noticed that the deceased had
been hit from behind by the offending truck and its front side had hit against
the deceased, who fell down and was run over by the truck. There are blood
stains on the ground in the direction of the offending vehicle.
16. Statement made by the complainant as PW-1 inspires confidence
that the witness has given a truthful account of the incident in question. It has
also been observed that simply because the deceased fell down in a pit after
hitting with the offending vehicle, it cannot be said that he was not hit by the
offending truck or was run over by some other truck. Further, there is also no
dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner being driver of the
offending vehicle as it has come in the evidence that Rikhi Ram (PW-1)
identified the petitioner to be the person who was driving the offending truck
and it has also been stated by the said witness that the accused had himself
disclosed his name at the spot as Pawan Kumar.
17. The learned Legal aid counsel for the petitioner has not been able
to point out any illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by both the
learned Courts after appreciation of evidence. Hence, in the absence of the
conclusions drawn by both the Courts being misplaced or misconceived or not
based upon evidence, such finding would not ordinarily be interfered with,
only because some other view may also be possible. It is settled principle of
law that High Court should not re-examine the entire evidence and re-start the
10 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
trial while exercising powers under its revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, no
illegality, perversity, impropriety or misappreciation of evidence has been
pointed out by the Legal Aid Counsel in the judgments passed by both the
learned Courts below.
18. Faced with this situation, Counsel submits that case of the
petitioner be considered on the quantum of sentence. The following mitigating
circumstances are pointed out by him on behalf of the petitioner:
(i) That the incident in question occurred in the year 2006, and more
than nineteen years have since elapsed. The petitioner has hence
endured the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial spanning over
nineteen years.
(ii) That the petitioner is not shown to have committed any other
criminal offence either prior to the above accident or thereafter.
(iii) That the incident in question took place without any intention or
deliberate act on the part of the petitioner. The same was
compounded under the corrective circumstances i.e. the area
being without light, limited vision due to parking of vehicles and
deep pits in the same.
(iv) That the petitioner is a poor person and has four children. His
children are now at crucial stages of their career. Directing the
petitioner to undergo his remaining sentence at this stage would
have devastating consequences for the family.
(v) That the petitioner had already undergone an actual sentence of
05 months and 10 days, out of the total sentence of 1½ years
11 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
awarded to him, at the time when his sentence was suspended by
this Court and as is reflected in order dated 10.01.2013 passed by
this Court.
(vi) That even thereafter i.e. after a lapse of more than 12 years, the
petitioner is not shown to have committed any offence.
19. The object of punishment is not only to punish but also to
rehabilitate the offenders in society. Where an accused reflects a strong
possibility of improvement and reformative behaviour, the process of law
should come to the aid of such an accused so as to ensure his reintegration
into society.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to
govern the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Reference in this regard may
be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State
of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Ors (2008) 7 SCC 550. The relevant extract of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -
5. 'Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would
take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or
invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to
have been committed by the accused plays an important
role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt
with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice
12 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of
India.
6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric.
We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the
doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of
the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said
principles should be borne in mind.
7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is
resorted to after a person is convicted of the offence. It is
the ultimate goal of any justice-delivery system.
Parliament, however, in providing for a hearing on
sentence, as would appear from sub-section (2) of Section
235, sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325 as also
Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
has laid down certain principles. The said provisions lay
down the principle that the court in awarding the sentence
must take into consideration a large number of relevant
factors; sociological backdrop of the accused being one of
them.
8. Although a wide discretion has been conferred upon the
court, the same must be exercised judiciously. It would
depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has
been committed and his mental state. Age of the accused is
also relevant.
9. What would be the effect of the sentencing on the society
is a question which has been left unanswered by the
legislature. The Superior Courts have come across a large
number of cases which go to show anomalies as regards
13 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
the policy of sentencing. Whereas the quantum of
punishment for commission of a similar type of offence
varies from minimum to maximum, even where same
sentence is imposed, the principles applied are found to be
different. Similar discrepancies have been noticed in
regard to imposition of fine.
10. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of W.B.
[(1994) 2 SCC 220], this Court held:
"15...Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner
in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice
against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should
impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts
reflect public abhorrence of the crime..."
11. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of
A.P. [(1996) 6 SCC 241], following Dhananjoy Chatterjee
(supra), states the principles of deterrence and retribution
but the same cannot be categorized as right or wrong. So
much depends upon the belief of the judges.
12. In a recent decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and
Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2006) 2 SCC
359], this Court opined:
"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates
conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and
property of the people is an essential function of the State.
It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal
law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where
living law must find answer to the new challenges and the
courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet
the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would
14 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of
society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the
object of law which must be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of
the edifice of 'order' should meet the challenges
confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing
Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-
-as it should be--a decisive reflection of social
consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the
sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective
machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft
modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should
be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The
facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of
the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the
conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all
other attending circumstances are relevant facts which
would enter into the area of consideration.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sevaka Perumal
v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471], this Court furthermore
held that it was the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the
manner in which it was executed or committed etc.
xxx
18. Don M. Gottfredson in his essay on "Sentencing
Guidelines" in "Sentencing by Hyman Gross and Andrew
von Hirsch" opines:
"It is a common claim in the literature of criminal justice
and indeed in the popular press that there is considerable
15 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
"disparity" in sentencing. The word "disparity" has
become a prerogative and the concept of "sentencing
disparity" now carries with it the connotation of biased or
insidious practices on the part of the judges. This is
unfortunate in that much otherwise valid criticism has
failed to separate justified variation from the unjustified
variation referred to as disparity. The phrase
"unwarranted disparity" may be preferred; not all
sentencing variation should be considered unwarranted or
disparate. Much of it properly reflects varying degrees of
seriousness in the offense and/or varying characteristics
of the offender. Dispositional variation that is based upon
permissible, rationally relevant and understandably
distinctive characteristics of the offender and of the offense
may be wholly justified, beneficial and proper, so long as
the variable qualities are carefully monitored for
consistency and desirability over time. Moreover, since no
two offenses or offenders are identical, the labeling of
variation as disparity necessarily involves a value
judgment- that is, disparity to one person may be simply
justified variation to another. It is only when such
variation takes the form of differing sentences for similar
offenders committing similar offenses that it can be
considered disparate."
[Emphasis supplied]
The learned author further opines:
"In many jurisdictions, judicial discretion is nearly
unlimited as to whether or not to incarcerate an
individual; and bound only by statutory maxima, leaving a
broad range of discretion, as to the length of sentence."
16 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
19. Kevin R. Reitz in Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice,
Second edition "Sentencing guidelines" states:
"All guideline jurisdictions have found it necessary to
create rules that identify the factual issues at sentencing
that must be resolved under the guidelines, those that are
potentially relevant to a sentencing decision, and those
viewed as forbidden considerations that may not be taken
into account by sentencing courts. One heated
controversy, addressed differently across jurisdictions, is
whether the guideline sentence should be based
exclusively on crimes for which offenders have been
convicted ("conviction offenses"), or whether a guideline
sentence should also reflect additional alleged criminal
conduct for which formal convictions have not been
obtained ("non-conviction offenses").
Another difficult issue of fact-finding at sentence for
guideline designers has been the degree to which trial
judges should be permitted to consider the personal
characteristics of offenders as mitigating factors when
imposing sentence. For example: Is the defendant a single
parent with young children at home? Is the defendant a
drug addict but a good candidate for drug treatment? Has
the defendant struggled to overcome conditions of
economic, social or educational deprivation prior to the
offense? Was the defendant's criminal behavior explicable
in part by youth, inexperience, or an unformed ability to
resist peer pressure? Most guideline states, once again
including all jurisdictions with voluntary guidelines, allow
trial courts latitude to sentence outside of the guideline
ranges based on the Judge's assessment of such offender
characteristics. Some states, fearing that race or class
17 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
disparities might be exacerbated by unguided
consideration of such factors, have placed limits on the list
of eligible concerns. (However, such factors may
indirectly affect the sentence, since judges are permitted to
base departures on the offender's particular 'amenability'
to probation (Frase, 1997).)"
20. Andrew von Hirsch and Nils Jareborg have divided the
process of determining sentence into stages of determining
proportionality while determining a sentence, namely:
1. What interests are violated or threatened by the
standard case of the crime- physical integrity, material
support and amenity, freedom from humiliation, privacy
and autonomy.
2. Effect of violating those interests on the living standards
of a typical victim- minimum well-being, adequate well-
being, significant enhancement
3. Culpability of the offender
4. Remoteness of the actual harm as seen by a reasonable
man.'
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar
Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must
not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and
reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an
appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors,
including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's
background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation,
18 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing,
the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where
multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure
that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.
22. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, the instant case at hand
is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach
in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the
judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape
the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law
aligns with their own best interests.
23. I find that the protracted criminal trial and the consequent agony
faced by the petitioner, the actual sentence, out of total sentence, already
undergone by the petitioner, the reformative tendency shown by the petitioner
by not indulging in any other offence as well as the legal principles reproduced
above are sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce the quantum of
sentence awarded to the petitioner.
24. The present petition is accordingly partly allowed. While the
judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, as well as the judgment passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, dated 21.08.2012, dismissing
the appeal preferred by the petitioner are affirmed, however, the order on
quantum of sentence dated 06.05.2010 is modified and the sentence awarded
19 of 20
CRR-3803-2012 (O&M)
to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However,
the sentence regarding fine and punishment in default thereof is maintained.
25. The present revision petition stands partly allowed accordingly.
26. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed
of accordingly.
November 20, 2025. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
20 of 20
