Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"#$$% & $$$$$$$$$ !' STATE OF PUNJAB $$$$ (!
! )" *+) $ &, &$ -
!"#
$% &&&&& , &$ -$$. '/0 '
! !! %
#! $#) !
*'**'*
%+ ,!
!#!
'
-
. !/0
%+
%
#!) )
! 0 +
#0! ! ***12!
# !# !) ) '3+
!4* 5 -!) )
! + #0! ! '***12!
#!) ) *6 +
!4*7 5 -!
% !#.5 " 3***4
#!
! 4*4*7
0!
22
!4 5 - !
! . !/ #! $#) **'
%+ !!
! ,# . !/ 0
%+ ! %+
%
+ 0
!
8!
!4*7 5 -
.50
#!
% ) !
%)! %+/ !# ")
!#
!# -/ 9+ ( ! :!
. !/ 5 !
) ! / !# 5 !#
; $!
!#
## ! %
!# !!
! % ( +
) ! + !! !
5+ 0
0 % % <!) + ₹'*****
)
! ₹43/ +% %+ !)5!
!)
!# ! ) +
/
! ) !
!)!
0%
# 0!!
! 0
)
0!
)!!#) ₹/ 0%
;0
) 0
# ) !
!
8
!
)
<
/ !#
)
)
!
) +
%
!
)
#
)!
5!
!)
! ) !
!#
22 0 /! !) !
! )!# !
) + .!!#
!
+ ) ! %)! !
! " '6*71 -142* *'** !
!
. !/
/!# ! !#!
2
= ) ! !
!#! !
! '6- -0 ! ! - 0
!
2
4 .!!# !)
!# %
)
0
))!
!
!
%
! 4*4*7
0!4 5!
- '>7* 3 !
0
!
!'- -0
;
!
%
!
7 5
% ! !
! <)!
0!
) + ?2' !# ?2 5
:
!# ?2")
!# ?24$!!# ?23 ! !#
?27,## !# ?26@/ !# 6 "
! 0!
0 <)!
+
!0 #
>
0
! ' - - !)!
0
! !
!)!!#
!#
0
!)(
!
#! ! !
+
!%
242
!
%
!
!
;
! +
!!
=
!
!# #)
0 %+ ,!
!#!
'
-
. !/
$#) *'**'*
) ! %
#!
!A
0 +0 %+ !!
! ,# . !/ 8!
! 4*7 5 - $#) **' ;
!! 10.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not wish to challenge the conviction and confines his prayer only to the sentencing. ( 0!#)!!#!#
! %+
• ( ! !8
!
!:
)%
**%+
• (
!
!#%
!
! +
!)!
!)!
!
!# +
!
!!
!#
!)
+
! )!
)
+ • (
#
!)! !
!#
!<
+
• (
!
) 3+
!
! !
! 0
232 • (
!
!#
##
+ %%!!+
!# 11.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing 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.
' 5
!#
# #
' ;B%
- ! )
%
!
) %
#
% )
)!
!
! + 5 0
!
) %
)! %+
!# #
! !#
% /# # ) )! !! !
%!!! !
!)!
))!+ !# - !
!
<
$!
!!
!0
)! ! + #!
)
272 ) % %
$
%
! !!
!
) ! 14 )
!) !!
!
%
)/!#
!
8
!) ))! %+!)
! ! !
!)
! % ( %+!
%!# - < !+
)!# !)
( !
!!+
% %
!)
+ 0 ! )! !
! !) !)) !
% <)! 15.
A nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of California reported as 402 U.S. 183 (1971), observed that the criteria governing sentencing neither furnish an exhaustive list of relevant considerations nor indicate how various circumstances should influence the decision-making process. In essence, these standards merely suggest broad areas for consideration and underscore the inherent difficulty in formulating uniform sentencing principles, particularly in matters of grave offences. The Court further cautioned against rigidly prescribing or mandating uniform standards for sentencing, emphasizing that the principles governing punishment must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and that no straightjacket formula can be universally applied. 16.
5!
!)!#!
$ -
@
!! !
)!
!
D= - !)
!
E
262
!)+ ) !!# $ ! !
! +
!)!$
+ )
! !+! !
!%
!
+ !
! (
+!#
)!
!
!
% !#!!
+
!
! !
) % ! +0!! %
!+( !) !!
!#
!
< % +0!
!!
%
! !
'6
8
!
% )
%
8!!
+ 0
<!%! # !
)!
(
0
!% )! !
!
#!!
# #% ! '> 5!
0
%$
!
!
)
+
%
)0
)
)
%!!! ) ) ! )
!%!
!! + '
! !
+
0
!
$
0 0
)!
!
!!
!%!
5 !
! $#
/ )! )
!
%
0 / 0!!0!
!!
!
0!# 0! 0%
!
* (/!# !
! !
%
!#
!#
!)!
!
2>2 0
#!
! .5 #!
% !
*+
+
#
3 )*'+5
)! ! +0 !!?! )!!!# $#) !
)! !
(
0 %+ ,!
!#!
'
-
. !/
*'**'* !
)! !
!
+
# ;0
! 0 %+ - % 0 ) ***12 !
!
3***12 ( !
! +) !
)! '
!#)!
!
!F G! +
!
., &$ -0 ,) #1% ?
/!#1
" H
1" ?
% H
1"