Revisioner challenged the sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death after a 27-year trial delay. Court held sentence excessive given age, no prior record, and long pre-trial custody, reducing it to time already served.
Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
156
CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M) Date of decision:22.01.2026
Hardeep Sin g h
.........Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present: M r. Jasraj Singh, Advocate for t h e petitioner.
M s. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.(Oral)
the petitione r has been convicted and senten c ed as under:-
| Name of the accused |
Offence under Section | Sente nce awarded. |
|---|---|---|
| Hardeep Singh |
304-A IPC | To un and to onet defaul underg dergo RI for a period of two years pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees housand five hundred only) In t of payment of fine, to further o R.I for a period of one month. |
| 279 IPC | To un month (Rupe of pay RI for dergo RI for a period of six s and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- es three hundred only) In default ment of fine, to undergo further a period of 15 days more. |
passed in C riminal Appeal No.27 of 0 3.04.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whe r eby the appeal preferred by
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
the petitioner against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence had been dismissed.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
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.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-4-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
A. That the incident in question pertains to the year 1999, and more than 27 year s 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
-5-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
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.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-6-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
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.
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-7-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the revisionist-petitioner.
“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
-8-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
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
-9-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
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.”
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
-10-
156 CRR- 1730-2008 (O&M)
| (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | : Yes/No |
22.01.2026
Sumit Gusain
SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.29 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence imposed for rash and negligent driving causing death warrants interference considering the time elapsed and mitigating circumstances.
Whether continued imprisonment after 27 years would serve meaningful penological purpose for a first-time offender.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & AnotherRelied on¶60
CRR-2697-2025 titled Lakshay Jain v. State of Punjab & Another, vide order dated 14.11.2025
Hardeep Singh
State of Punjab
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
