IN 156 Hardeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE Present: Mr. Ms. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. 1. The judgment of by the Sub-Divisional No.17 dated 304-A of the the petitioner Name of the accused Hardeep Singh 2. Challenge passed in Criminal Additional Sessions THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRR- 1730 Date of Singh VERSUS Punjab HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for the Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab. ***** BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral) The present revision petition has conviction and order of sentence Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya 23.02.1999 registered under Sections the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police petitioner has been convicted and sentenced the Offence under Section Sentence 304-A IPC To undergo and to one thousand default undergo 279 IPC To undergo months (Rupees of payment RI for Challenge further is to the judgment Criminal Appeal No.27 of 03.04.2006 Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH 1730-2008 (O&M) of decision:22.01.2026 .........Petitioner ....Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ the petitioner. . has been preferred against the sentence dated 14.03.2006 passed Dasuya in case bearing FIR Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, Police Station Dasuya, whereby sentenced as under:- Sentence awarded. undergo RI for a period of two years to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees thousand five hundred only) In default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I for a period of one month. undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) In default payment of fine, to undergo further for a period of 15 days more. judgment dated 06.08.2008 03.04.2006 passed by the whereby the appeal preferred by SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -2- the petitioner against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence had been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 23.02.1999, SI Raminder Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Dasuya, along with other police officials, was present near S.D.M. Chowk, Dasuya, in connection with routine patrolling duty. At about that time, a Class-IV employee of the Civil Hospital, Dasuya, handed over to him an intimation/chit bearing No. 6/N.K./99 dated 23.02.1999. Upon receipt of the said intimation, SI Raminder Singh, accompanied by the police officials, proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Dasuya. At the hospital, the complainant, namely Subhash Chander Handa, met the Investigating Officer and made a statement that he is a resident of Androoni Bazar, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. He stated that he, along with his close relatives, had gone to Noor Mahal to attend the marriage of the son of his sister. On 23.02.1999, after attending the said marriage, they were returning to Pathankot. The complainant further stated that his younger brother Raman Kumar, his wife Neeru, his mother Sheela Rani and his nephew Sonu and Lali were travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-35-B-5859, which was being driven by his brother Raman Kumar. The complainant, along with some other relatives, was travelling in another car, which was following the said Maruti car. At about 12:30 p.m., when they were at some distance from Dasuya, near the road bridge in the area of Langerpur, a bus bearing registration No. PAB-6025, coming from the side of Dasuya, was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. It was SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -3- stated that the driver of the bus, while overtaking a truck, brought the bus onto the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with the Maruti car driven by Raman Kumar. As a result of the said collision, Raman Kumar and his wife Neeru sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. After making arrangements at the place of occurrence, the complainant shifted his mother Sheela Rani and his nephews Sonu and Lali to the Civil Hospital, Dasuya. It was further stated that Sheela Rani and Sonu succumbed to their injuries at the hospital, whereas Lali alias Vimal was referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, for further treatment. The complainant stated that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that the Maruti car belonging to his brother was also extensively damaged. 4. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant, an FIR in the present case was registered and during the course of investigation, both the vehicles involved in the accident were taken into police possession after preparing recovery memos and their mechanical inspection was got conducted, whereupon mechanical test reports were obtained. The place of occurrence was photographed on the date of the accident and the photographs were taken into police possession by way of recovery memo. The registration certificate of the bus and its route permit were also seized after due compliance of formalities. The accused was arrested in accordance with law. 5. Upon completion of the necessary investigation and other statutory formalities, the police presented the challan before the competent court for the trial of the accused. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -4- 6. On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. The prosecution examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses and the evidence was thereafter closed. 7. The entire evidence was put to petitioner and his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the same but led no evidence in defence. 8. On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya vide judgment dated 14.03.2006 and was sentenced as mentioned above. Appeal against the said judgment of conviction & order of sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 06.08.2008. Hence, the present petition. 9. After arguing the matter at some length, counsel for the petitioner does not press the present revision petition on merits and contends that he would confine his challenge only to the quantum of punishment that has been awarded. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner: A. That the incident in question pertains to the year 1999, and more than 27 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence. The inordinate passage of time has itself operated as a substantial punitive factor. B. That at the time of the occurrence, the petitioner was approximately 30/32 years of age and has since attained the age of about 57/59 years and prolonged incarceration at this SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -5- stage of life would serve no meaningful penological purpose. C. That the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 05 months 17 days out of the total sentence of 02 years. D. That the petitioner has suffered the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial spanning over 27 years, during which he has lived under constant anxiety and social stigma. E. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner has been involved in any other criminal case, either prior to the occurrence or during the pendency of the present proceedings. F. The long interregnum without any subsequent criminal conduct clearly indicates that the petitioner has reformed himself and has successfully reintegrated into the mainstream of society, fulfilling the rehabilitative object of criminal jurisprudence. G. In the facts and circumstances of the case, continued imprisonment would be retributive rather than reformative, and would not advance the ends of justice. H. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone. 10. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -6- argued that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for imposition of a stringent sentence. The learned State counsel submits that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to society and undermine the administration of criminal justice. Hence, it is imperative that adequate and deterrent punishment be imposed to ensure that such acts do not recur and to maintain public confidence in the rule of law. 11. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the case record. 12. Since the petitioner has given up the challenge to the judgment of conviction on merits, hence, the said issues are not being gone into at this stage. The discussion is thus restricted solely to the issue of sentencing and quantum of punishment. 13. The purpose of sentencing being both deterrent as well as reformative, hence, while sentencing of an accused factors, such as psychological and sociological circumstances of an accused; the gravity, nature and manner of committing the offence; the consequences, the social reaction of the offence; the antecedents and tendencies of an accused should be taken into consideration. 14. In the present case, there is nothing on record to reflect that the petitioner possesses a criminal bent of mind or that his conduct poses any threat to the society. Hence, by the broader principles of criminal SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -7- jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the revisionist-petitioner. 15. This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender’s background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead, the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents, conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea, recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are as follows: “32. The imposition of punishment is a refined judicial function that demands a careful harmonization of its underlying purposes namely, retribution, deterrence, and reformation. This balance must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but also the ethical standards and social context in which justice is administered. As societal values and circumstances evolve, the prominence accorded to each of these aims necessarily varies, requiring the Court to adapt its emphasis in response to the changing demands of justice. The aforesaid principle found early articulation in the writings of Justice Caldwell, who, in his authoritative work “Criminology,” observed that: “If the infliction of pain is to have its greatest effect upon the behavior of a person, it must follow soon after the act for which it is given. But punishment always takes place SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -8- weeks or even months after the offense has been committed, since the offender must first be apprehended, tried, and convicted. Such delay tends to disconnect the punishment from the offense in the mind of the offender, and it may well be considered as merely another painful experience in an unjust world.” 33. Moreover, Italian criminologist and jurist Cesare Beccaria, in his seminal treatise “On Crimes and Punishments,” propounded the doctrine of penal parsimony, emphasizing that the justification of any criminal justice system rests upon its capacity to inflict the least possible evil necessary to achieve its ends. The underlying premise is that punishment, being in itself a necessary evil and devoid of inherent virtue, must be confined strictly within the bounds of necessity. The imposition of suffering or restriction upon an offender cannot extend beyond what is indispensable for the preservation of social order. 34. While ‘retributive’ object of sentencing is seen regressive, in modern day sentencing jurisprudence for its focus on punishing proportionally for the harm done and caters to the negative senses of spite and anger against a wrongful act, the rehabilitative/reformative approach examines the circumstances surrounding the offender on social, economical, physical and psychological level so as to reintegrate the offender in the social mainstream. The law extends the benefit of good and perceives a probability and possibility of reform. It aims at capitalising a perceived social liability. The expectation of law is based on the surrounding circumstances to distinguish between a ‘criminal’ and an ‘offender’. 35. While the pre-requisites of crime do not distinguish two persons, on the legal scale, this aspect is significant for sentencing. A mere involvement of a person in crime may SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -9- not necessarily mark a person as a ‘criminal.’ ‘Criminality’ in mind and action has to be determined from the totality of circumstances including the mode and manner in committing an offence, the conduct pre and post the offence, the criminal antecedents, nature of involvement, influence of peers etc. and not just from an isolatory consideration of commission of an offence. A Court of law would not assume every offender to be beyond reform and differentiate in punishment on considering whether the offences arise due to human error or that stem from actions propelled by mens rea. 36. The case in hand is yet another where interest of justice would warrant a reformative approach in precedence to a punitive or retributive approach. It is not the function of the judges to seek the transformation of human nature itself, but rather to shape the framework within which individuals perceive that adherence to the law aligns with their own best interests.” 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon consideration of the mitigating factors brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it stands established that the petitioner is a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has endured the rigours and anxiety of a criminal trial for a period exceeding 27 years. The petitioner is now approaching the age of 60 years and there is no allegation or material to suggest his involvement in any other criminal case. It is further an admitted position that the petitioner has already undergone actual custody for a period of 5 months and 17 days out of the total sentence of 2 years imposed upon him. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) -10- 17. In view of the foregoing facts and the mitigating circumstances noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. Accordingly, while the judgment of conviction is maintained, the order on sentence warrants interference. The sentence imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, vide order dated 14.03.2006, is hereby modified and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 18. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 22.01.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document