Harjit Singh @ Bittu v. State Of Punjab
!" #$%$ &'(() *+ (((((((((
$ & , STATE OF PUNJAB (((( %- &" & ' ./ ( *0 *( 1
!
" # $ %%%%% 0 *( 1(( , &
# (
&)*))*
$+ ,
- !
.
/
$+
(
(
)0( ! / ))12
!
(
( (
* 3 , (
(
&4+
! / 5))12
!
(
( 6(
5)2 3 ,
73 0 ))0))8
22 * * 55* 559 5)2 3 , ! " -
# ( )))&&
$+
- .
/
$+
!
$+
(
73/
( (
$+
!/ +.
3
"
( !/ + ! :" ;.
$
!+ !! / 6 !
!/ +,
&58)
!
! /
!+ #
' $ ($
/
<)*&80=
73 /
! 3 "
#
"
($ #
,!.
!.
>
'
/
$
> !+
$ !'
/
$+'
# 3
" /
/
/
(
+ !
!!
/
5 = (
! ( !
!
'
(
( +
/
/ /
' /
!
/
5&5, ,/
.
$!
252 8 =
(
/
$+ ,
- !
.
# ( &)*))*
( $
?
/
(
$+ !
- .
# ( )))&& .
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not wish to challenge the conviction and confines his prayer only to the sentencing. He submits that the present matter pertains to the year 2011 and that no other criminal case stands registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone actual custody of 7 months and 18 days out of 1 1⁄2 years. Hence, the factual matrix and merits of the case are not being examined at this stage. Counsel further submits that the alleged incident occurred in 2005 and that the petitioner has faced agony of a protracted trial for nearly 20 years. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.
7.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for imposition of a stringent sentence. The learned State counsel submits that leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to society and undermine the administration of criminal justice. Hence, it is imperative that adequate and deterrent punishment be
22 imposed to ensure that such acts do not recur and to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.
9 3
!
.@$!
, (
$
( ( $ /
$
(
+ 3 /
!
( $
( $+
!
(
B
( ( !
$!
(
((+ , !
!
# !
/
(! !
+! ! (
( $
#
$
'
6
# (
$ !/2
12. India, till date, does not have a statutory sentencing policy in place. This Court, however, has proceeded to examine the objective behind sentencing and the factors to be kept in mind while imposing such punishments. In Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P. [Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P., (1977) 3 SCC 287 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 496] (two-Judge Bench), it stood observed that : (SCC pp. 290 & 293-94, paras 9 & 16-17) "9. ... Crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social
282 behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defence. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an "in terrorem" outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. ***
16. ... 'A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances - extenuating or aggravating - of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence. [ As observed in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190 at p. 191 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 546] '
17. It will thus be seen that there is a great discretion vested in the Judge, especially when pluralistic factors enter his
202 calculations. ... innovation, in all conscience, is in the field of judicial discretion."
(emphasis in original) 10
(
( B
!C
>
( (( $+(
!
(
'
$+
$! , 6
+
( (
'
!+ $ (
+
/!
( ( (( !!
$ ( 11.
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. & 3
$ B B
/
$! !
$ (
(
! ( (
'
2*2
6
D ' >
+
))8
!+/ ++
'
(
/
'
!!
$
! (
/ !!
!+
!
'
$
! +
(!
( !
+
!
(
!!+
(
(
+ '
!
>
(
$ (
>
!
!+ /
6$
'
/
$!
(
$ 3 / !!
!
$# (
!+
$
( /
(
(
$!
(
(
$
292
+ &5 '
B
$
(
/
73
$
&4+
+
)*( &9 + 3
(
!+ !!/
E!
( # (
( '
/
$+ ,
- !
.
&)*))* (
+
./
/
$+ , !/ ( 5))12
&)))12 & !!
( !!
! :
; +
0 *( 1 3) E
B 1
' F
1 E
$!
F
1