[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Soma vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026
CRR-2587-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
216 CRR-2587-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.03.2026.
Soma ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present: Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
***
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged
the judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2024 passed
by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, in case FIR
No.283 dated 28.08.2020, under Sections 392, 120-B and 201 IPC,
registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhia, District Kapurthala was
upheld.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 27.08.2020 at 8:30 A.M.,
complainant Jasvir Kaur stated that she was at her house, when two boys
came at her house, by putting her in fear, they removed gold earings along
with one gold ring and silver anklets. On the basis of the said statement of
1 of 4
the complainant, the present FIR was got registered against the petitioner.
Upon trial, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 17.08.2024 passed by
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Ldohi, the petitioner
was convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of accused Under Section Imprisonment
Soma 411 IPC To undergo R.I. for 01
year and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine, to
undergo R.I. for 30 days.
3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, but the judgment
of conviction passed by the trial Court was upheld by the said Court and
appeal was dismissed.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the judgment of conviction of the petitioner is not being
assailed on merits and he restricts his prayer for modification of order on
quantum of sentence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the state submitted that the well
reasoned judgment has been passed by both the Courts below based on
correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the petitioner
does not deserve any leniency.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record
has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.
7. Since the revisionist/ petitioner has not challenged the
judgment of conviction on merits, as such the said issues are not being gone
into at this stage and it is being restricted to the issue pertaining to
sentencing and quantum of punishment.
2 of 4
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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, 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.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated in Ravada Sasikala v.
State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that 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
noticing 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. In order to
determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle
of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but also
reformative.
10. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that there is no
perversity and evidence on record has been appreciated in the right
perspective, but as observed above, the counsel for the petitioner has not
challenged the conviction on substantive grounds and while limiting his
3 of 4
plea solely to modification of the quantum of sentence to one already
undergone.
11. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of
the petitioner, as per which the petitioner has already undergone custody of
07 months and 25 days out of awarded substantive sentence of 01 year.
12. Taking into consideration the facts noticed above that the
petitioner has faced the rigors of a long criminal prosecution; in the facts
and circumstances of the present case it would be in the interest of justice, if
sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
13. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision
is disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2024 passed by
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi
are upheld with modification to the extent that the sentence of
the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone by him.
14. The concerned jail authorities are directed to release the
petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
16. Registry is directed to do the needful.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
19.03.2026. JUDGE
Komal
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No
Whether reportable? : Yes/ No
4 of 4
