Naveen Kumar Alias Titu Vs State of Haryana

1 . The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Fatehabad, in FIR No.0278 dated 20.05.2018 registered under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, registered at Police Station City Fatehabad, has been dismissed.

¶11

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

¶12

Offence	Sentence
Section 279 of IPC	Simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which, simple imprisonment for one month.
Section 304-A	Simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which, simple imprisonment for one month.

¶13

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶14

After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial

¶15

Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 18.11.2023. Aggrieved by

¶16

Neha 2025.05.21 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRR-150-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 20.12.2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the judgments of the learned Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 05 months and 28 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioner is not involved in any other criminal activity.

¶21

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/304-A of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, petitioner has already undergone a period of 05 months and 28 days in custody out of total sentence of 02 years, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, 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.

¶23

Neha 2025.05.21 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CRR-150-2025 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , 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 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 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.

¶27

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 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 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.

¶28

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 20.05.2018 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial

¶29

Neha 2025.05.21 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRR-150-2025 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

for last about 07 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶33

Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision

¶34

petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶35

(i) The judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, is upheld and sentence of 02 years and fine awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

¶36

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

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

		(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
19.05.2025
Neha
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶39

Neha 2025.05.21 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Naveen Kumar Alias Titu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar Alias Titu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kirpal Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sat Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Arun and Sanjay Vs State of Haryana

Gisela Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vedpal Singh Vs State of Hry.