[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 16 December, 2025
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
253
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.12.2025.
GAGANDEEP KUMAR
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur, mother of the petitioner in person
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2019 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, whereby the revisionist-petitioner
had been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections
279, 304-A, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC") in case bearing FIR No. 69 dated 05.05.2016 registered
under Sections 279, 304-A, 338, 427 IPC at Police Station Dharamkot,
Moga as well as judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide which appeal filed by the revisionist-
petitioner has been dismissed. The revisionist-petitioner has been sentenced
as under:-
1 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -2-
Sr. Offence U/S Sentence Fine In
No. default
of
payment
of fine
1. 279 IPC RI for six months 1000/- RI for
one
month
2. 304A IPC RI for one year 1000/- RI for
one
month
3. 338 IPC RI for one year ----- ----
4. 427 IPC RI for six months ------ -----
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The aforesaid case had been registered at the instance of
Lakhvir Kaur that on 04.05.2016 at about 9:30 pm, within the area of Police
Station Dharamkot, District Moga (near Grain Market, Jalalabad East),
petitioner while driving Car make Swift bearing Registration No. HR-26-
AT-3821 in a rash and negligent manner on a public way hit Ranjit Singh,
who was changing the punctured tyre of Scorpio bearing Registration No.
DL-8CL-0909 owned by Rachhpal Singh. As a result of collision, Ranjit
Singh succumbed to injuries and Rachhpal Singh also received grievous
injuries. The Scorpio car was also damaged due to the collision.
3. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR in the present case was
registered and investigation was conducted. During the course of
investigation, IO recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161,
Cr.P.C. Petitioner- Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation
and other necessary formalities, challan against the accused was prepared
and presented against the accused.
4. On presentation of challan, copies of documents were supplied
to accused free of costs as per Section 207, Cr.P.C.
2 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -3-
5. Finding that a prima facie case is made out, the petitioner was
charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections
279/304-A/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the contents of the
same were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the
following nine witnesses:
PW-1 Om Prakash, Retired Mechanic, Punjab Roadways, Moga
PW-2 Malkit Singh, Photographer
PW-3 Dr. Rajesh Mittal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga
PW-4 Lakhvir Kaur (Complainant)
PW-5 Rashpal Singh (Injured)
PW-6 ASI Harnek Singh
PW-7 ASI Surinder Singh
7. Prosecution failed to examine its remaining witnesses despite
availing several effective opportunities. Resultantly, remaining prosecution
evidence was closed by order.
8. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances
and evidence appearing on record were put to him. The petitioner denied the
allegations in its entirety, describing the prosecution case and evidence as
false and fabricated, and asserted his innocence. He specifically pleaded that
3 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -4-
he was falsely implicated in the present case on asking of Dimple son of
Jagdarshan Kaur, Local Congress leader of Dharamkot, District Moga.
9. After considering the arguments advanced by the counsels of
the parties, the testimonies of witnesses, and the evidence placed on record,
the learned Judicial Magistrate1st Class, Moga, vide judgment and order of
quantum of sentence dated 06.07.2019 , held the petitioner guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2019 before
the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. However, vide
judgment dated 21.08.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga,
dismissed the aforesaid appeal and consequently affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 06.07.2019 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga. Hence, aggrieved by the said
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 06.07.2019
and judgment dated 21.08.2025, the present revision petition has been
preferred.
11. Lawyers are abstaining from work on account of a call from the
High Court Bar Association.
12. Amarjeet Kaur, Mother of Petitioner in person contends that
she does not press the present revision petition on merits and would confine
the challenge only to the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner.
The following mitigating circumstances have been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner:
4 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -5-
(i) That the unfortunate incident in question occurred in May 2016,
and 9 years have since elapsed. At the time of the incident, the
petitioner was approximately 27 years old and prior to the
above accident or since then he has not been involved in any
other offence or criminal activity.
(ii) That the incident in question was unfortunate and purely an
accidental occurrence, having taken place without any intention
or overt act on the part of the petitioner.
(iii) That the petitioner has endured the ordeal of a prolonged
criminal trial spanning over a period of nine years.
(iv) The incarceration of the petitioner is causing severe hardship to
the family of petitioner.
13. ASI Deepak Kumar, Pairvi Officer, on the other hand, contends
that both the learned Courts below have examined the evidence brought on
record and concurrently recorded a finding of conviction against the
petitioner. It has been further submitted that in a revisional jurisdiction,
neither new line of defence can be adopted nor any re-appreciation of the
evidence can be undertaken. The learned State counsel submits that there is
no illegality or perversity that has been pointed out by the petitioner in the
instant case and, hence, there is no occasion that would call for upsetting the
findings recorded or the sentence awarded and affirmed by both the learned
Courts below.
14. I have perused the case file and gone through the impugned
judgments.
15. Since the petitioner has given up the challenge to the judgment
5 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -6-
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.
16. The purpose of sentencing being both deterrent as well as
reformative, hence, while sentencing of an accused, factors such as
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.
17. 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.
18. 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
6 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -7-
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."
19. 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.
20. 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, economic,
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
7 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -8-
circumstances to distinguish between a 'criminal' and an 'offender'.
21. 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 mens rea.
22. Moreover, an accident does not fall under the category of a
heinous offence as it generally does not fulfill the ingredients of heinous
offences. The reference of serious offences is qualified to those involving
mental depravity. Such offences are usually in the context of criminal acts
showing profound disregard for life and law or having social impact. As per
Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 'depraved' as an adj. of a person or
crime means corrupt or perverted or morally horrendous.
23. The instant case at hand is yet another example 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.
8 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -9-
24. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP reported as (2004)
7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined
that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a
minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the
period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court.
Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence,
manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be
considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is
not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors,
proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of
proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it
come across as lenient. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166,
has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as
it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not
only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is
well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such
discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of
each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime
was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between
the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. In order to
determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle
of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but also
reformative.
25. Adverting to the facts of the present case and the mitigating
9 of 10
CRR-2292-2025 (O&M) -10-
circumstances as pointed out by counsel for the petitioner, it is established
that petitioner is a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents. He has
undisputedly faced agony of criminal trial for 9 years. Besides, he has
already undergone an actual custody of nearly 3 months and 24 days out of
the total sentence of 01 years.
26. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While the judgment of
conviction dated 06.07.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Moga, and judgment dated 21.08.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner are affirmed,
however, the order of sentence dated 06.07.2019 is modified and the
sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. However, the sentence regarding fine is maintained. The
petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
27. Pending criminal misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
December 16, 2025. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
