High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/2901/2016disposed of

Bir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2025-11-17Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj14 pages

"#$%%& ' %%%%%%%%% "( STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER %%%% !) "

"! *# +,* % '- '% .

!" $

"% & "" # '$

" ( )

!" $

"% &

*+ ,"# ----- - '% .%%/ (01 .

# # ## /

!# 0 !, & # #

121

131

/) / ## #" 4 #" !# ( " #

/ #! 56 *7

131211

# 38 219+ & 6 $ "#

#( "# ":" :

"" !# 0 !,

++ 19171;

# 4 !

":" :

/) " &#"

/) ##

!# 0 !, &/## #"4 #" !# ( " /

. ##

+ <&&

386 $ $#

#,"

#, , &

# &

, 219+ 6 $ $#

#,"

#, , &

# & ) = &") ,, #>

& &

131211 "

# #& ,# :

& , .0 = "# /) " !

/ 2+9 )

&&# #"

.0 = "#

, & ,"# ##!

#!# /) ##!/21 # " /

/ #!#!

#'#!:

& #,& , 4!!#(:

&#""

:# # !"#!

") , #!

'# " & ,/ #

&"!#

)

& .

:) /

@ ")

#%:

56:

!# #, &

#&""

)& ,"##

#!# ""

#32$ $: /,#

# $

+2+ 2 < ,"

# &

" ,"#

# #

/ # #

# ?,#

&"":#! #? :#

A+ ( $ /"

#0) "

A+ $ /"

# "

A+2 4

A+9

##!$,"#%

A+ $ /"

A+; # B,#! . #

: ##

# 22 $ $ :

(

#! !, /)

"& #

#! #

/ ## #" 4 #" !# ( " #

0 !,

121

#, & &&

# 38 219+ & 6 $ " !# 0 !, & # # C

: "

# 4 !

":"#

0 !,

19171;(

## 5.

Learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner contends that he does not wish to challenge the conviction and confines his prayer only to the quantum of sentence. Hence, the factual matrix and merits of the case are not being examined at this stage. He submits that the present

+9+ matter pertains to the year 2010 and that no other criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the incident occurred in 2010 and that the petitioner has faced the agony of a protracted trial for nearly 15 years. Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced to the custody period already undergone.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as

!" $

" / "& &

+ ,"# opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and argued that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence brought on record during the trial. It is further contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is of a serious nature and, therefore, calls for the imposition of a stringent sentence. The counsel submit 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. 3 6

#! #

! !

7 #

# ## / #! ""

/) !" $

"& ##

# &

/ #!

# !, & ##

& # , 0

C "

!" #" ) / #

/ ?,#

++ 8 . (D/"

, $ "# :

# # #"

$ # ,

#! &

,) / ,

0 !, & (D/"

, $ # ,

? & # 0 !, #

#/ ":+

! "#

$ %

#! $

$ ' &

()* + ),

' ()* + )"- + ,) + ,%.,%/

+;+

0 - !

! 2

+ /.$4 !4+ 56(/22"*)+

)).7

8 9/$

9 //;< = ! +

+3+

!& 6(/22%* % +

)"/7

( *

+ /)$ +: ! + ;

? 6()..%* ) +

,27

8 E# + + $

A B

C + 8 9+ ''

1 5

+7+

+ & + D 6(/22/* , +

"#/7

1 111 /-4 E;

9+ ;

9 9+ F ;

! F 9 8 9$

9 9

9 9 0

+8+

3 E

9 6H 7

8 9$

9 /2 I = => H :

+ 9+ 9 8 9!

1 (9 9*

+1+

(9 ' 9* ! '

18 $

J $

J F

J 1

1 J E

+ 1 (F

A B

( /22#**9 ). ! F D :

8 / '

++ ) H ' '

3 '

" = 1 . (D/"

, $ # ,

& ! "#$%/

# , , / # :

& !

/ , &

& ,#

# !

# & &&

# ) 6 : &

, /

#! !

# " #!

& &&

/ '!

, " ,#" ## #" &

/#"## #

#,#"

,,#) #! $

"# ?

& 0 #"

,"#"

#" ) "!# " , "&

, / /"

0 #

/ "

# # ## "

,# . & , "

&#, ##&

# /

,'#!

"#>

,,#

/)#,

# "#& & # #, "

#"&/ . , /)#

/"#!

? #) # &

& ,#!#,

"&. # #"

& #"#) / /"

#, & &&

) :"

# ,#&# # # #, #,,

# ""

/ ?,#

++ 12.

A nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Dennis CouncleMcGautha 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.

2 6 &

# "

!" / '

#! # # :

/"#

!" # #"

#!#/

# " ,##!#!

/) ##

. ,

G # . #

# @

# ) 11 ") )

. ##

) &&

" !# &

#,#"

#! ") &#&

)

& 2 ,

#,"

#, , & &&

# 38

&1) #,"

#, ,

+2+ & ,,#

#&&&

#219+

& 6 $ ## . ##

: #"&

& , ,#

# ?

## & ### . ##

# ")1)

#, & # ## ) 1 :"

:/ ## ;1 :#

&,#")"#& #"

,##!

# "#'

")#, &

& #"

# &,#") =

)

! ")19, 12 ) & "

# .

#" & "

/ ,

& @##

: &&

?#/#

& ,# .

#/"

, #&# #

!## !

, & ! / # 6# :

&# , # ,

/ "

& , :

, , #& & ,

#/#

# !

# # )

+9+ 9 .'#!#

# & #

/ ##

#! &

#,#"

#& ") )

!# #& 566

,# # ") "": ##A#"

,###! 0 !, & # #

/)/ $ # /## #"4 #"!# ( " :

# 4 !

":"

# , #&#

/) .

#"$ &&# ,

# 4 !

":"#

0 !,

19171;# , #&#

# "

)

"" #! ,#

"" "# # % #& )

& ;

)&#

(#!$ !"

$,,#

& #& ,#

) # /- '% .1 -* $2& <+ A

'#!B

# H

B* A