| |
CDJ 2026 PHC 017
|
| Court : High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Case No : CRR No. 2207 of 2012 (O&M) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL |
| Parties : Gurtej Singh Versus State of Punjab |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Pooja Chopra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ravinder Singh, DAG. |
| Date of Judgment : 03-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Indian Penal Code - Section 341/ Section 324/ Section 323/ Section 506/ Section 34 -
|
| Judgment :- |
|
(Oral):
1. This revision is filed against the judgment dated 14.07.2012. passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala in case FIR No.151 dated 05.05.2007 under Sections 341/324/323/506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Tripuri Patiala has been dismissed.
2. Brief background of the case is that the case arises from an incident reported by the injured, Mandeep Singh, whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. As per his version, on 05.05.2007 at about 8:30 a.m., he had gone to the motor of Sarpanch Jaswant Singh to collect milk. While he was talking to Neeta, a servant of Jaswant Singh, Gurtej Singh, along with his wife Preet Kaur and sister Rani, arrived at the spot and surrounded him. It was alleged that Gurtej Singh inflicted a kirpan blow on the complainant's right thigh, after which the complainant attempted to flee but fell to the ground. Thereafter, Preet Kaur allegedly struck him with a dang on his left elbow, and Rani also gave a dang blow on his right leg. Gurtej Singh further inflicted additional kirpan blows on the complainant's left hand. Upon the complainant raising an alarm, his father, Kirpal Singh, reached the spot, following which all the accused fled. The complainant was subsequently admitted to the hospital for treatment. He further stated that a dispute had taken place between the parties a day prior to the occurrence. The statement of the complainant was read over and explained to him, which he admitted to be correct and signed. After due endorsement, the statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, a rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, and the accused were arrested. Their arrest memos and personal search memos were duly prepared. Upon completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the learned trial Court for trial. Upon trial, vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2010, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of convict
| Sentence under Section
| RI awarded
| Fine
| In default of payment of Fine further RI for
| Gurtej Singh
| 341 read with Section 34 IPC
| 06 months
| ---
| ---
| 324 read with Section 34 IPC
| 06 months
| ---
| ---
| 323 read with Section 34 IPC
| 06 months
| ---
| ---
|
3. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who vide judgment dated 14.07.2012 dismissed the same.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is not assailing the conviction of the petitioner on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as he has already undergone total sentence of 01 month 15 days.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record and opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he 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. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Supreme Court (Three-Judge Bench) underscored that sentencing is not a mere formality in criminal proceedings. Where a statute prescribes both minimum and maximum terms, the court must exercise the discretion conferred upon it judiciously not whimsically or arbitrarily. Factors such as the gravity of the offence, manner of commission, and the accused's age are imperative in determining an appropriate sentence. The sentencing court must operate within the principle of proportionality, ensuring the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor inappropriately lenient.
8. In Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Court reaffirmed that sentencing serves a broader social purpose a deterrent effect that compels the offender to acknowledge the harm caused both to the victim and to society. The Court held that opportunities for reformation must be afforded, and sentencing discretion must be exercised by weighing all attendant circumstances, including the nature and manner of the offence and the conduct of the accused, to strike a balance between legal efficacy and prospects of rehabilitation.
9. A careful review of the conviction rendered by the learned Appellate Court reveals no perversity; the decision is grounded on a sound appreciation of the evidence. Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction on substantive grounds, limiting his plea solely to a modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone.
10. Perusal of record indicates that FIR(supra) was registered in the year 2007 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last 18 years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone the total sentence of 01 month and 15 days, out of substantive sentence of 06 months awarded to him.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
12. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present Revision is disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 14.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 06.10.2010 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 months awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
|
| |
