Krishan vs State Of Haryana

Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 11.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, in case FIR No.347 dated 15.09.2004, under Sections 454, 380 and 324 of IPC, registered at Police Station City, Jind, was dismissed.

Brief facts of this case are that on 27.08.2004 at 12/12:30 P.M., complainant Rajesh stated that his wife Harsh Bala was working in the kitchen and in the meantime accused Kirshan and Sunil @ Sonu entered his house and forcibly snatched two ear rings, three nose pin, three ladies rings, two gents rings, one locket, one chain ladies all made of gold, one ladies watch, eight artificial bangles and currency notes of Rs.3,000/-. While committing theft, they assaulted his wife and she remained admitted in the hospital for five days. On the basis of the said statement of the complainant, the present FIR was got registered against the petitioner. Upon trial, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 04.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, but the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was upheld by the said Court and appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.05.2010.

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. He prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2004, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

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 do not deserve any leniency.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

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 the prayer is restricted to the issue pertaining to sentencing and quantum of punishment.

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.

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.

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 while limiting his plea solely to modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone.

Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, as per which the petitioner has already undergone custody of 07 months and 12 days out of awarded substantive sentence of three years.

Taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner has faced the rigors of a long criminal prosecution and the alleged incident took place in the year 2004, the petitioner is having clean antecedents, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Considering 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.

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision is disposed of in the following terms:-

The concerned jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Registry is directed to do the needful.