Sita Singh Vs State of Haryana

Th e prayer in the present appeal i s to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2 6 .05.2007 passed by learned Additional Ses s ions Judge, Fatehabad, whereb y the appellant was convicted and sentenced f or the offence punishable unde r Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy c hotropic Substances Act, 198 5 (hereinafter ‘NDPS Act’), in the case stemmi n g from FIR No.111 dated 23.0 2 .2002, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act at P o lice Station Sadar, Fatehabad.

¶14

Th e appellant was sentenced as me n tioned below:

¶15

Offence	Sentence
Section 15 Drugs (b)of the Narcotic and Psychotropic	Rigorous ofone imprisonment for a period yearand to pay fine of
Substances Act, 1985	Rs.5,000 of fine, imprison /- and in default of payment to further undergo simple ment for five months.

¶16

MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶17

CRA-S-1153-SB-2007

¶18

2

¶19

Br i ef facts of the case are that on 2 3.02.2002, when ASI Rajinder Singh along wit h other police officials was goi n g from Bus Stand Dariyapur to village Akanwa l i on foot in connection with P o lice Alert Operation patrolling and crime dete c tion, they saw the appellant, having tied a gathri around his waist, sat behi n d the bushes, after seeing the police. On suspicion, he was apprehended. U pon search of gathri , 14 kgs o f Poppy Husk was recovered. Subsequently, F IR (supra) was registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 4. Le a rned amicus curiae for the ap p ellant inter alia contends that there are material contradictions in the testimo n ies of PW-7 i.e. ASI Rajinder Singh and PW- 5 i.e. HC Keshav Dutt regardin g the affixation of seals on the samples. She further contends that the link evi d ence in the prosecution case is defective, whic h cannot be taken into consider a tion. She submits that there is an unexplained delay in sending the represe n tative sample to the forensic science laborat o ry. She further submits that no i n dependent witness was joined to lend any cre d ence to the case set up by the p r osecution. Lastly, she submits that the appella n t has already undergone total c u stody period of 04 months and 07 days and is n ot involved in any other crimin a l case.

¶20

Pe r contra , learned State couns e l opposes the prayer of the appellant as th e learned Court below has pas s ed a well-reasoned judgment based on correc t appreciation of evidence avail a ble on record as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

¶21

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record wit h their able assistance, it transpires that the appellant was convicted for b e ing in possession of 14 kg of P oppy Husk, which falls under the purview of S ection 15 NDPS Act. As per his custody certificate, he is not

¶22

MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶23

CRA-S-1153-SB-2007

¶24

3

¶25

involved in any other case and has already und e rgone an actual sentence of 04 months and 07 d ays out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no min i mum punishment prescribed u n der Section 15 NDPS Act, for the non-comme r cial quantity, this Court is of t he opinion that it would be in the interest of j u stice, if the sentence awarded t o the appellant is reduced to the period already u ndergone by him.

¶26

In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 , the Hon'ble Supre m e Court has opined that awar d ing of sentence is not a mere formality in c r iminal cases. When a mini m um and maximum term is prescribed by t h e statute with regard to the per i od of sentence, a discretionary element is ves t ed in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gra v ity of the offence, manner in w h ich the offence is committed, age of the acc u sed, should be considered whi l e determining the quantum of sentence and th i s discretion is not to be used a r bitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all re l evant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the prin c iple of proportionality to e n sure the sentence is neither excessively har s h nor does it come across as lenient. 8. Fu r ther, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou r t in Ravada Sasikala vs. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 , has reiterated that t h e imposition of sentence also serves a social p urpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage cau s ed not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this reg a rd is well settled that opport u nities of reformation must be granted and su c h discretion is to be exercis e d by evaluating all attending circumstances o f each case by noticing the nat u re of the crime, the manner in which the crim e was committed and the con d uct of the accused to strike a

¶27

MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶28

CRA-S-1153-SB-2007

¶29

4

¶30

balance betwee n the efficacy of law and the c hances of reformation of the accused.

¶31

A p erusal of the judgment of co n viction passed by the learned trial Court indi c ates no perversity in its findi n gs and the same is based on correct appreci a tion of evidence available on record. However, the FIR ( supra ) was lo d ged on 23.02.2002 and the ap p ellant has been suffering the agony of trial f o r last about 23 years. Since his c onviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citi z en and desires to live a peacef u l life. 10. Th e refore, in view of the discussi o n above, both the appeals are disposed of in t h e following terms:-

¶32

(i) The judgment dated 26.05. 2 007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fateha b ad is upheld. (ii) The order of sentence of even d ate i.e. 26.05.2007 is modified to t he extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 01 ye a r and fine of Rs.5,000/- al o ng with default mechanism aw a rded to the appellant is redu c ed to the period of sentence alr e ady undergone by him. 11. Pe n ding miscellaneous applicatio n (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶33

Th e High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae as p e r rules.

¶34

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) March 20, 2025 JUDGE manisha

¶35

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

MANISHA 2025.03.25 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Sita Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Singh 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

Sachin Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Santosh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kikkar Singh Vs State of Pb.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Pb.