Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

T he present revision petition h a s been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sente n ce dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Am r itsar whereby the petitioner has been co n victed and sentenced to underg o simple imprisonment for a period of 01 year for commission of offenc e s under Section 304-A IPC and simple i m prisonment for a period of si x months for commission of offences un d er Section 279 IPC in case bearing FIR No.260 dated 26.12.2010 r egistered under Sections 304-A , 427, 279 & 337 of the IPC at Police St a tion, Jandiala, Amritsar and a gainst the judgment dated 18.03.2016 p assed by the Additional Sessio n s Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal fi l ed by the petitioner has been di s missed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the p resent case are that the FIR was register e d on the statement of Jograj Si n gh dated 26.12.2010 against the present a ppellant. The complainant st a ted that on 26.12.2010, he along with h is father Bhupinder Singh a n d mother Amrit Kaur was travelling fr o m their village Chahal towar d s Amritsar in an Indica car bearing regi s tration No. HR-51-M-6966 in connection with the marriage SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶15

-2-

¶16

of Abinashi Singh, son of Sukhbir Singh, resident of H. No. 364, Kot Mit Singh, Taran Tarn Road, Amritsar. It was further stated that his cousin brother Gurlal Singh, uncle Dilraj Singh, aunts Malwinder Kaur and Narinder Kaurand cousin brother Harkirat Singh were travelling ahead of them in a Zen car bearing registration No. DL-4-CF-0863 for attending the same marriage. At about 11:30 a.m., when the said vehicles were approximately two kilometres behind Nawan Pind, a truck coming from the side of Amritsar, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and on the wrong side of the road, struck the Zen car head-on. As a result of the impact, the Zen car fell into roadside pits and was badly damaged and its occupants, namely Gurlal Singh, Dilraj Singh, Malwinder Kaur, Narinder Kaur and Harkirat Singh, sustained multiple injuries. The complainant further stated that the offending truck was bearing registration No. NL-02-G-7735 and that the name of the driver was later found to be Sukhdev Singh. The injured persons were taken to Escort Hospital, Amritsar, where Narinder Kaur and Gurlal Singh were declared dead on arrival, while Harkirat Singh was admitted for treatment. According to the complainant, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a high speed and on the wrong side of the road. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR came to be registered.

¶17

On completion of the procedural compliances, parties led their respective evidence. The prosecution examined as many as four prosecution witnesses and the evidence was thereafter closed.

¶18

The entire evidence was put to petitioner and his statement

¶19

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶21

-3-

¶22

under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the same but led no evidence in defence.

¶23

On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide judgment dated 30.09.2015 and sentenced as mentioned above. Appeal against the order of conviction & sentence was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 18.03.2016. Hence, the present petition.

¶24

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:

¶25

A. That the incident in question pertains to the year 2010 and more than 16 years have elapsed since then.

¶26

B. That at the time of the occurrence, the petitioner was approximately 37 years of age and has since attained the age of about 53 years.

¶27

C. That the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody of more than 06 months 22 days out of the total sentence of 01 year.

¶28

D. That the petitioner has endured the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial spanning over a period of 16 years. E. There is no record of the petitioner having been involved in any other similar criminal offence, either prior

¶29

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶31

-4-

¶32

to or during the pendency of the present case, indicating that the petitioner has reformed himself and has successfully reintegrated into the mainstream of society.

¶33

F. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing

¶35

the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has 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.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the case record.

¶37

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.

¶38

The purpose of sentencing being both deterrent as well as reformative, hence, while sentencing of an accused factors, such as

¶39

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶41

-5-

¶42

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.

¶43

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 jurisprudence, no adverse presumption can be drawn against the revisionist-petitioner.

¶44

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:

¶45

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

¶46

must reflect not only the reasoning of the Court but also the

¶47

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶49

-6-

¶50

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:

¶51

“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 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.”

¶52

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.

¶53

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

-7-

¶55

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶56

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’.

¶57

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 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

¶58

mens rea.

¶59

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

238 CRR- 2135-2016 (O&M)

¶61

-8-

¶62

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.

¶63

Adverting to the facts of the present case and the mitigating circumstances pointed out by counsel for the petitioner establish that petitioner is a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents. He has undisputedly faced agony of criminal trial for more than 16 years. He is now nearing 53 years of age. He is not stated to be involved in any other case. Besides, he has already undergone an actual custody of more than 06 months 22 days out of the total sentence of 01 year.

¶64

Taking into consideration the facts and the mitigating circumstances as noticed above, I deem it appropriate to partly allow the petition. While maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence is modified. The sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide order dated 30.09.2015 is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

¶65

All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶66

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 13.01.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶67

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.23 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Sat Pal Vs Shamsher Singh Bandan

Davinder Kumar Vs Manju Arora

Kaka Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mukul @ Manjeet Vs State of Haryana

Tripta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Another

Arun Sharma Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Ors.