Kala Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2025CRR/1819/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR-1819-2008; Punjab & Haryana HC; sentence reduced to period already undergone; no minimum punishment under S.148/323/324/34 IPC; conviction upheld, quantum modified; custody 01 month 29 days of one-year sentence; FIR of 1998, 26-year pendency; proportionality and reformation in sentencing; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; Kala Singh, Kulwant Singh, Janta Singh v. State of Punjab; revision disposed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld (impugned judgment dated 29.08.2008 affirmed); sentence of one year and fine reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioners (01 month and 29 days). Pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. ¶¶32

Kala Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2008 requires any interference on merits. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

There is no perversity in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court; the conviction is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Since no minimum punishment is prescribed under Sections 148/324/323/34 IPC and the petitioners have already undergone 01 month and 29 days of the one-year sentence, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The judgment dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa is upheld, and the sentence of one year and fine awarded by the learned trial Court is further reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioners.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRR-1819-2008, decided 09.04.2025, Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) — Petitioners Kala Singh, Kulwant Singh and Janta Singh, convicted in FIR No.62 dated 20.08.1998 under S.148/323/324/34 IPC, whose convictions had been modified by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa on 29.08.2008 (to S.324 IPC against Kala Singh; S.324 r/w S.34 and S.323 r/w S.34 IPC against the others, vice S.324/149 and S.323/149 IPC), did not assail the conviction on merits and sought only reduction of sentence to the period already undergone (01 month 29 days of the one-year sentence). Holding that no minimum punishment is prescribed for these sections, and noting 26 years of trial agony since the 1998 FIR, the Court upheld the judgment dated 29.08.2008, found no perversity in the trial court's conviction, and reduced the sentence of one year and fine to the period already undergone, relying on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 (proportionality in sentencing) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 (reformation/deterrence balance). Revision disposed of; pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

¶1

209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRR-1819-2008

¶3

Date of decision: 09.04.2025

¶4

Kala Singh and others ....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶8

Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

M r. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶11

1 . The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Mansa, in FIR No.62 dated 20.08.1998 filed under Sections 324/323/34 of IPC, has been modified.

¶12

After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioners vide judgment dated 11.10.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, vide which conviction of the petitioners has been modified to the extent that accused/petitioner No.1, namely Kala Singh was convicted under Section 324 of IPC, whereas, accused/petitioners No.2 & 3, namely, Kulwant Singh and Janta Singh, respectively, were convicted under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of IPC instead of Sections 324/149 of IPC. Further, accused-Kulwant Singh and Janta Singh were convicted under Section 323 of IPC and all the petitioners

¶13

Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRR-1819-2008

¶15

-2-

¶16

were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC instead of Sections 323/149 of IPC.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2008 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners, as all the petitioners have already undergone a total period of 01 month and 29 days in custody. He further submits that accused/petitioners were involved in one more case, however, they are out from jail in the said case.

¶18

Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, they do not deserve any leniency. He further submits that the accused/petitioners were involved in one more case, however, could not controvert the fact that they are out from jail in the said case.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioners were convicted under Sections 148/323/324/34 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per their custody certificates, petitioners have already undergone a period of 01 month and 29 days in custody and out of total sentence of one year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 148/324/323/34 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶20

Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRR-1819-2008

¶22

-3-

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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 20.08.1998 and the petitioners have been suffering the agony of trial

¶26

Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-4-

¶28

CRR-1819-2008

¶29

for last more than 26 years. Since their conviction, they have grown into a lawabiding citizen and desire to live a peaceful life.

¶30

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

¶31

petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

¶32

(i) The judgment dated 29.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, is upheld and sentence of one year and fine awarded by the learned trial Court is further reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioners.

¶33

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

¶34

disposed of.

¶35

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

¶36

09.04.2025 Neha

¶37

Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kala Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kala Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

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

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Haryana

Divanshu and Another Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohammad Salman Vs State of Haryana

Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Joginder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others