Jagdeep Singh Alias Deepa vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

Present revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.05.2017 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghapurana and judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 IPC ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304A IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months and iii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 427 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2013, ASI Major Singh, along with other police officials, was present at Main Chowk, Baghapurana, in connection with patrolling duty, where complainant Baljinder Singh got recorded his statement. He stated that after attending a function at Gurdwara Chand Purana, he, along with his son Gurmeet Singh @ Soni and daughter-in-law Baljeet Kaur, was proceeding towards village Sahoke. At about 3.00 P.M., near Grain Market, Baghapurana, an Indica car bearing registration No. PB-10-TC(T)-2305, being driven rashly and negligently by Jagdeep Singh @ Deepa, came on the wrong side of the road and struck the motorcycle of Gurmeet Singh and Baljeet Kaur. Gurmeet Singh died at the spot, while Baljeet Kaur succumbed to her injuries at Civil Hospital, Moga. On the basis of the statement, FIR was registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Tushar Vs. State of Haryana and another; CRM-M-24616-2025 decided on 04.12.2025. However, he submits that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also contends that nearly a decade has passed since petitioner is facing the rigors of trial. He has already undergone custody for a period of 05 months and 07 days out of the awarded sentence of two years. He prays that since the occurrence is of the year 2013, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and has filed the custody certificate in the Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have

available on record.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 admits the factum of compromise between the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2013 and the petitioner has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 12 years.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP", (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the petitioner, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.

Further, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim, but also to the society at large. The 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

conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts indicate no perversity in their findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 2013. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 12 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. [2023:RJ-JD:28174] (5 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003] State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period as already undergone by him.

fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the judgment passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghapurana dated 01.05.2017 and judgment dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga are hereby affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the Court concerned under Sections 279, 304A and 427 IPC is hereby modified and reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

With these modifications, the present petition is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE

18.09.2026

Janki

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No