Sentence Is Not a Mere Form, But a Tool to Balance Justice and Reformation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces 3-Year Sentence to Time Already Undergone

“When no minimum punishment is prescribed, the Court must consider the gravity of the offence, the background of the accused, and the proportionality of punishment in light of reformation.” — Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

In a reasoned and reform-oriented judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court reduced a sentence of three years' imprisonment under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to the period already undergone by the appellant — a woman convicted for conspiracy in a violent robbery case.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, acknowledging that the appellant had already spent 5 months and 28 days in custody and had shown signs of rehabilitation, held that the ends of justice would be better served by allowing her to reintegrate into society rather than continue incarceration for a crime committed over five years ago.

“Conviction not assailed, but sentence deserves reconsideration in light of time, conduct, and consequences”: Court evaluates five-year-old case

The case stemmed from FIR No. 124 dated 07.05.2019, registered at Police Station City Dadri, where the complainant Harish Kumar, a factory owner, reported that around 2:00 AM on the night of 6th–7th May 2019, two armed intruders stormed his residence. They tied up the complainant, his wife Sanju Devi, and their son, assaulted them with rods, and looted ₹24–25 lakhs in cash, gold chains, and rings. The FIR was registered under various sections including 392, 397, 459 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Sanju Devi was not accused of physical participation in the robbery, but was convicted solely for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC on 11 December 2024, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with fine by the trial court on 17 December 2024.

Her counsel did not challenge the conviction itself but requested leniency on the quantum of sentence, urging the Court to consider her clean past, the five-year pendency of trial, and her conduct post-conviction.

“Discretion is not to be used arbitrarily — Sentence must reflect proportionality”: High Court leans on SC’s sentencing jurisprudence

Justice Brar cited the Supreme Court's decision in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257, to stress that sentencing must not be mechanical but must account for the facts of the case and the profile of the accused. He observed:
“Awarding of sentence is not a mere formality… discretion is to be exercised bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor comes across as lenient.”

Further relying on Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Court reaffirmed: “The imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose… it must be balanced against the chances of reformation.”

Justice Brar acknowledged that Sanju Devi had suffered the ordeal of a prolonged five-year trial, had no other criminal involvement, and had already spent a significant period in custody.

“Justice is not just punishment — it is recognition of change”: High Court exercises humane discretion
The Court emphasized that though the conviction stood on solid ground and was not challenged, the sentence deserved judicial review. Noting that her co-accused had already secured sentence suspension, the Court remarked:
“Since her conviction, the appellant has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires to live a peaceful life.”
The Court concluded that continuing her incarceration would neither serve the cause of deterrence nor justice.

Upholding the conviction under Section 120-B IPC, the Court modified the sentence to: “The period of sentence already undergone by her.”
The appellant was ordered to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 21 April 2025