IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 207 CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 20.07.2026 Jagtar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Ms. Arzoo Modi, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. (Oral) 1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 20.09.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and judgment dated 11.09.2008 vide which learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda dismissed the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence dated 20.09.2007, whereby the petitioner was convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 304-A/279/338 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 16.03.2003 the police received a wireless message regarding a road accident near Punjab Spinning Mill, Dabwali– PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) ( 2 ) Bathinda Road. ASI U.C. Chawla alongwith the other police officials reached at the spot and found that the injured had already been shifted to Civil Hospital, Bathinda. At the hospital, Gurjant Singh and Sadhu Singh were declared dead, while Malkiat Singh, Jit Singh and Narinder Singh were found injured. As the injured were initially declared unfit to make statements, their statements could not be recorded. On 17.03.2003, after the doctor declared the injured fit, ASI U.C. Chawla recorded the statement of Malkiat Singh (Ex.PA). Malkiat Singh stated that on 16.03.2003 he, along with his brother Gurjant Singh, Sadhu Singh (driver of the jeep), Narinder Singh and Jit Singh, had gone from Village Bhadaur to Village Mori Wala to obtain medicines. It is alleged that while returning in Jeep No. PB-04A-0515, driven by Sadhu Singh, they reached near Punjab Spinning Mill at about 5:30 p.m., where a private bus bearing registration No. PB-03K-9711 of Guru Nanak Transport driven by Jagtar Singh came from the Bathinda side at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, entered the wrong side of the road, and collided head-on with their jeep. As a result of the collision, Gurjant Singh and Sadhu Singh died on the spot, while Malkiat Singh, Narinder Singh and Jit Singh sustained injuries. Malkiat Singh attributed the accident solely to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, Jagtar Singh. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and forwarded to the police station for registration of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 03 months and 04 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the pendency of PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) ( 3 ) the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner stands involved in one more case, but he stands acquitted by learned Trial Court in the said case. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is suffering from ectopic right kidney failure. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the medical condition of the petitioner, 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 undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. 4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 19.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner as he submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted in the present case based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits. Learned State counsel on instructions from MHC Pavitar Singh, however, informed that although the petitioner was involved in one more case of similar nature, but he stands acquitted by learned Trial Court in the said case. Learned State counsel also submitted that apart from the present case, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. 6. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and closed its evidence. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner denied the PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) ( 4 ) allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication, which ultimately resulted into conviction. The accused, however, opted to lead defence evidence, but closed his evidence without examining any defence witness. 7. As per record, the FIR was registered in the year 2003. At that time, the petitioner was 32 years of age and today he is about 55 years of age, and has already faced a protracted criminal proceeding of more than 23 years. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 338 of Indian Penal Code for driving rashly and negligently and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of the two precious human life. But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance imparing his driving skills. It was a rash and negligent act simpliciter and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is undoubtedly despicable aggravated offence warranting stricter and harasher punishment. 9. 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 so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 19.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 03 months and 04 days of the substantive sentence out of PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) ( 5 ) the total imposed sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 10. 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 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 the 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.” 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) ( 6 ) 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 and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one. 12. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 304-A, 279 & 338 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 16.03.2003 and the petitioner throughout been on bail. This Court is of the view that it would be rather harash to send the petitioner to jail after about 23 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 be enhanced. 13. Given the above discussion and without opining on 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 altered 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 trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today. 14. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged. PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-2384-2008 (O&M) ( 7 ) 15. 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. 16. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. 20.07.2026 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.07.24 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment