[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @Maddi vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2026
CRR-675-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
108 CRR-675-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.03.2026.
Jaswinder Singh @ Maddi ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
.......
Present: Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
***
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged
the judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2024 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, in case FIR No.116
dated 21.05.2021, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police
Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur was upheld.
2. Brief facts of this case are that on 20.05.2021 due to the alleged
rash and negligent driving by the petitioner of truck bearing registration
No.PB-32L-9366, death of Rupinder Singh was caused. On the basis of the
statement of the complainant Jasvir Singh, the present FIR was got
registered against the petitioner. Upon trial, vide judgment and order of
1 of 4
sentence dated 18.10.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Hoshiarpur, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-
Name of accused Under Section Imprisonment
Jaswinder Singh 279 IPC 03 months
@ Maddi
304-A IPC 02 years
3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, but the judgment
of conviction passed by the trial Court was upheld by the said Court and
appeal was dismissed.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the judgment of conviction of the petitioner is not being
assailed on merit and he restricts his prayer for modification of order on
quantum of sentence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the state submitted that the well
reasoned judgment has been passed by both the Courts below based on
correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the petitioner
does not deserve any leniency.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record
has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.
7. Since the revisionist/ petitioner has not challenged the
judgment of conviction on merits, as such the said issues are not being gone
into at this stage and it is being restricted to the issue pertaining to
sentencing and quantum of punishment.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs.
State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be
2 of 4
viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and
reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an
appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors,
including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's
background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for
rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the
community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of
judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors
must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and
individual redemption.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated in Ravada Sasikala v.
State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that 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.
10. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that there is no
perversity and evidence on record has been appreciated in the right
perspective, but as observed above, the counsel for the petitioner has not
challenged the conviction on substantive grounds and while limiting his
plea solely to modification of the quantum of sentence to one already
undergone.
3 of 4
11. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of
the petitioner, as per which the petitioner has already undergone custody of
01 year, 04 months and 04 days out of awarded substantive sentence of 02
years.
12. Taking into consideration the facts noticed above that it was
unfortunate purely accidental occurrence, that the petitioner has faced the
rigors of a long criminal prosecution; that he is the first time offender with
no criminal antecedents, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it
would be in the interest of justice, if sentence awarded to the petitioner is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
13. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision
is disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur is upheld.
(ii) The order of sentence dated 18.10.2024 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur is modified to the
extent that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the
period of sentence already undergone by him.
14. The concerned jail authorities are directed to release the
petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
16. Registry is directed to do the needful.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
13.03.2026. JUDGE
Komal
Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No
Whether reportable? : Yes/ No
4 of 4
