Disposed¶31

Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2025CRR/835/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision; sentence modification to period already undergone; conviction upheld for filing false affidavit; Sections 177, 181, 182, 193 IPC; no minimum punishment prescribed; proportionality in sentencing; chances of reformation; FIR No. 427 dated 16.06.2007 PS City Gurgaon; Chief Judicial Magistrate Gurugram; Additional Sessions Judge Gurugram; release from custody; Deo Narain Mandal (2004) 7 SCC 257; Ravada Sasikala AIR 2017 SC 1166; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of: conviction upheld, sentence reduced to the period already undergone, and the petitioner to be released from custody forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶31

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Haryana — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram warrants interference in revision (the petitioner did not assail it on merits). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

No perversity was found in the trial Court's judgment of conviction, which was based on correct appreciation of evidence; the conviction therefore stands.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram is upheld.

¶32

Key takeaways

As no minimum punishment is prescribed under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 193 IPC, the petitioner (per custody certificate) was not involved in any other case, had undergone actual sentence of 01 month and 28 days, and had not challenged the conviction on merits, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone.ratio¶21
The order of sentence dated 12.05.2016 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years along with total fine of Rs. 7,000/- with default mechanism is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar, J.), CRR-835-2025 (O&M), decided 15.05.2025 — Criminal revision against the judgment dated 17.03.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram upholding conviction under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 193 IPC for filing a false affidavit (FIR No. 427 dated 16.06.2007, PS City Gurgaon). Conviction upheld: no perversity found in the trial Court's findings. Since no minimum punishment is prescribed under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 193 IPC, the petitioner had undergone 01 month and 28 days of the 03-year term, was not involved in any other case (per custody certificate), and had not challenged the conviction on merits, the order of sentence dated 12.05.2016 (rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with total fine of Rs. 7,000/- and default clause) was reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner to be released forthwith if custody not required elsewhere. Reliance placed on Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 (three-Judge Bench) and Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 (two-Judge Bench) on proportionate and reformative sentencing.

¶1

CRR-835-2025 (O&M) 1 263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRR-835-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.05.2025

VINOD KUMAR

...PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶8

Present: Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate and

¶9

Mr. Ravi Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavata, AAG Haryana.

¶11

¶12

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

¶13

The prayer in the present revision petition is to set aside the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 09.05.2016/12.05.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram have been upheld wherein the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 193 of Indian Penal Code in the case stemming from FIR No. 427 dated 16.06.2007 registered at Police Station City Gurgaon.

¶14

The petitioner was sentenced for filing a false affidavit, as mentioned below:

¶15

Offence under Section	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of payment of fine
177 of IPC 181 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years	Rs. 500/- Rs. 2,000/-	Further simple imprisonment for two months
182 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months	Rs. 500/-
193 of IPC MI 15	Rigorous imprisonment	Rs. 4,000/-

¶16

AJAY GOSWAMI2025.05.15 17:15 193 of IPC I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRR-835-2025 (O&M) 2 for 03 years

¶18

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 12.05.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a period of 01 month and 28 days out of total sentence of 03 years imposed upon him.

¶20

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned Courts below have passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, the petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted for filing a false affidavit, attracting the offences under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 193 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case and has already undergone an actual sentence of 01 month and 28 days out of total sentence of 03 years in the instant case. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits. Rather, he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of order on quantum of sentence. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 193 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

¶22

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.15 17:15 him. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRR-835-2025 (O&M) 3

¶24

In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 , a three Judge bench of 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.

¶25

Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. 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.

¶26

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 16.06.2007 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of

¶27

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.15 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRR-835-2025 (O&M) 4

¶29

trial for last more than 17 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-

¶30

abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.

¶31

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

¶32

(i) The judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram is upheld.

¶33

(ii) The order of sentence dated 12.05.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years along with total fine of Rs. 7,000/- with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶34

The petitioner be released from custody forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.

¶35

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

¶36

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 15.05.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶37

AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.15 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Mahinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajoliver Alias Raj Oliver Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rohit @ Astal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Simran and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mukesh Kumar Alias Mukesh Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Alias Harpreet Singh Toor Vs State of Punjab and Others