Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab

Vide judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed by this Court, the conviction of appellant Sukhchain Singh recorded by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC was converted to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

In sequel to said judgment, the convict Sukhchain Singh has been produced in Court by ASI Satnam Singh and HC Jarnail Singh, to be heard on the quantum of sentence.

Neither learned counsel on behalf of the convict is present nor learned counsel for the State is present.

The convict was hardly 20/21 years old at the time of commission of crime, i.e. 17.11.1998. He submits that a lenient view may be taken. His behaviour was exemplary during his imprisonment and nothing adverse was ever reported against him. He also submits that he has already undergone 8½ years imprisonment. The Court can take judicial notice that he must have earned remission.

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 taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case where a lenient view can be taken.

Consequently, convict Sukhchain Singh is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him for the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. He is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Registry is directed to supply certified copy of judgment dated 19.07.2019 as also this order to the convict during the course of the day, free of costs.

Disposed of.