Gurjinder Singh @ Sukhi @ Kali And Ors. vs State Of Haryana

Vide judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by this Court, the conviction of appellant-Sukhmander Singh @ Gurdam recorded by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC was converted to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

In sequel to said judgment, the convict-Sukhmander Singh @ Gurdam is present in Court to be heard on the quantum of sentence. He has been produced by SI Satbir Singh, P.S Lines, Sirsa.

Neither learned counsel for the convict has put in appearance nor there is any representation on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana. The convict has been heard in person. He is 45 years of age and has already undergone three years, eight months and twenty five days of actual sentence. The conduct of the convict is stated to have remained exemplary in prison and nothing adverse was ever reported against him during his imprisonment. He thus, prayed that a lenient view on the quantum of sentence may be taken.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 359 have held that after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.

Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 532 have laid down the relevant factors to be considered at the time of imposing sentence. Their Lordships have held that sentencing system must be based on and courts must consider the factual matrix in the shape of (1) nature and gravity of offence and attending circumstances, (2) motive and manner of commission of offence, (3) weapons used, and (4) conduct of accused.

Paras 14 to 16 reads as under:

"14). The general policy which the courts have followed with regard to sentencing is that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime.

15) In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

16) It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence."

Having heard the convict and on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, convict-Sukhmander Singh @ Gurdam is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. The convict shall undergo the remaining part of sentence.

Registry is directed to supply certified copy of judgment dated 29.07.2019 as also this order to the convict during the course of the day, free of costs.

Disposed of.