202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.07.2026 HARDEEP SINGH …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …. Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Mohit Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. * * * * DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J 1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 01.05.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 304-A/279/337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and judgment dated 13.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of statement of one Ram Kumar that on 04.11.2000 he along with his family members was returning from Bathinda after attending marriage ceremony in his relation. The car was driven by one Nirmal Singh and at about 1.30 a.m. when they reached near Electricity Grid Singhwala Road a truck bearing registration No.RJ- 13-G-1550 came from the opposite side which was being driven rashly & negligently at a very high speed. The said truck struck against his car on SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the driver side and as a result, he and his family received injuries. The driver of the car Nirmal Singh, succumbed to the serious injuries received during the said accident. Consequently, FIR No.136 dated 05.11.2000 was registered at Police Station Sadar Moga under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A trial was proceeded where the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 01.05.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment of conviction, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against both the judgments. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 02 months and 17 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -3- undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 08.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. A bare perusal of the material available on record reveals that the prosecution examined 08 witnesses and closed its evidence. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the allegations and submitted that he was innocent. After perusing the record, this Court finds that no defence was produced by the petitioner. 8. Further, as per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2000. The petitioner, who is 72 years of age, has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 25 years. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of the precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -4- undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harsher punishment. 10. Further, a perusal of the judgment shows that there was no test identification parade conducted during the investigation with regard to identifying the petitioner. Moreover, there were major improvements before the trial Court by PW Nos.5 & 6 in reference to the identity of the petitioner. The Courts below convicted the petitioner solely because his driving license was recovered from the truck and the said truck was never physically brought to the Court or exhibited in evidence. 11. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the offences are not heinous so as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 08.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 02 months and 17 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of 1½ years rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 12. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -5- reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.” 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while modifying the sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -6- and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. 14. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A/279/337 of Indian Penal Code and this Court has also gone through the judgments of the Courts below and does not find any infirmity therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is hereby upheld. The occurrence took place on 04.11.2000. This Court is of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the petitioner to jail after 26 years of the occurrence. The interest of justice would be met if the petitioner’s sentence is modified and fine as imposed by learned Trial Court is enhanced. 15. Given the above discussion and without opining upon the merits of the case, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the Courts below is modified to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the concerned trial Court within a period of two months from today. On realisation, the amount shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased upon proper receipt and identification. 16. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged. 17. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 202 CRR No.778 of 2008 (O&M) -7- 18. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. 09.07.2026 ‘Sandeep’ (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable: Yes No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.15 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.