Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court



1
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102+203
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
Jasbir Singh
… Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of Punjab
...Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER MALIK


Present:- Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Mansi, Advocate for L.Rs of the complainant.

*



RAVINDER MALIK, J. (Oral)


CRM-41520-2026
This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been
filed for placing on record the compromise dated 01.09.2026 as
Annexure P-1, arrived at between the applicant-petitioner and legal
representatives of Boota Ram-deceased.
The application is allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-1 is
taken on record. Registry is directed to append it at the appropriate
place.
CRR-818-2009
1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged the judgment dated 25.02.2009 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal filed by him, challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2008 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in case FIR No.43
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



2
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

dated 11.03.2006 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, registered at Police Station No.1, Jalandhar, was
dismissed. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned
trial court as under:-

Under
Section
Sentence
279 IPC To undergo RI for the period of Six months and to pay
fine of Rs.300/- failing which he will further undergo
SI for one month.
304-A IPC To undergo RI for the period of one year and to pay
fine of Rs.700/- failing which he will further undergo
SI for one month.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sentence
awarded to the petitioner had been suspended vide order dated
06.05.2009 passed by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner
and the LRs of the deceased have entered into a compromise dated
01.09.2026 (P-1) and prays for compounding of the present offence.
03. Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody
certificate dated 24.10.2026, which is taken on record. A perusal of
the said custody certificate reveals that the petitioner had undergone
actual custody period of 02 months and 13 days.
04. Learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the deceased
submits that the matter has been settled between eh parties and has no
objection in case the petitioner accused is not punished for the
commission of the present offence.
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



3
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the documents available on record with their able
assistance.
06. At the very outset, it would be apt to deal with the
compromise deed dated 01.09.2026 wherein the LRs of the deceased
Boota Ram have entered into a consensus of getting the present
offence compounded. However, the current offence has been
committed under Section 304-A which negatively impacts the social
order and public safety. Moreover, the offence punishable under
Section 304-A does not find its mention in the list of compoundable
offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Hence, it cannot be compounded
on the basis of the compromise deed.
07. On being confronted about the aforesaid provision under
the law, counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to
press the instant petition on merits and confines his prayer only to the
quantum of punishment and sentence imposed by the learned trial
Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. He prays that the
sentence of the petitioner be reduced to that already undergone.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the LRs of the deceased,
however, submits that they have no objection in case the prayer for
reduction in sentence to that of already undergone is considered.
08. Though, the offence committed under Section 304-A is
not compoundable, however, it is a settled law that even if an offence
is non compoundable, considering the compromise effected between
the parties, the sentence of the accused can be reduced while
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



4
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

maintaining the conviction. The same finds its support from the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Puttaswamy v. State
of Karnataka and another 2009(1) RCR (Criminal 501 (Supreme
Court) as thus:-
“9. What emerges from all these decisions is that
even if an offence is not compoundable within the
scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal
Procedure the Court may, in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce
the sentence imposed while maintaining the
conviction. In the present case, the appellant has
been convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6
months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The
sentence as far as conviction under Section 279
I.P.C. is concerned has been set aside by the High
Court. What remains after the judgment of the
High Court is the conviction under Sections 279
and 304-A I.P.C. wherein the appellant was
sentenced to undergo six months simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In
our view, this is one of those cases where instead
of confining the appellant in prison, the interest of
justice will be better served if he is made to
compensate the family of the deceased on account
of the loss suffered by them.
10. Accordingly, while maintaining the
appellant's conviction under Sections 279 and 304-
A I.P.C., notwithstanding the agreement arrived at
between the parties, we increase the amount of fine
from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



5
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

appellant to the parents of the deceased and
reduce the sentence to the period already
undergone, subject to payment of the fine. The
aforesaid amount is to be deposited by the
appellant in the Trial Court within three weeks
from date, and on such deposit, the said amount
shall be made over to the parents of the deceased
and the appellant shall be released forthwith. In
default of such deposit, this order shall remain in
abeyance for a period of four weeks and if still no
deposit is made within the said period the appeal
will stand dismissed.”
09. The object of punishment would be better achieved if the
offender is not merely punished but also rehabilitated. The Court must
not be oblivious to the prospects of reformation and scope of societal
reintegration.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain
principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of
sentencing. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar &
Ors’., (2008) 7 SCC 550 . The principles enunciated therein, inter alia,
emphasise that while determining the appropriate sentence, the Court
is required to consider factors including the nature and gravity of the
offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the
mental state and age of the accused, the sociological backdrop of the
accused, and also the requirements of proportionality, deterrence and
rehabilitation so as to fulfil the broader object of criminal law. The
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



6
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

discretion vested in the Court in the matter of sentencing is required to
be exercised judiciously to uphold justice.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in Ravada
Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166 , 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 the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between
the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. In
order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in
mind the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not
merely retributive but also reformative.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Pramod Kumar
Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment
must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of
reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was
further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by
considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances
of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional
condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the
deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted,
involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple
social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure
that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.
13. Since, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



7
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

petitioner has refrained from pressing against his conviction,
therefore, the judgment dated 25.02.2009 passed by the learned
Appellate Court upholding the judgment of conviction passed by
learned trial court under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC, is
affirmed .
14. The sole issue which remains for consideration before
this Court is whether the quantum of sentence awarded requires
consideration in view of certain mitigating circumstances apprised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the present FIR
was registered as far back as on 11.03.2006 and the petitioner has
remained embroiled in the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial for a
span of more than 20 years. As per the custody certificate, the
petitioner was not involved in any other criminal offence and there is
also no material on record to hold that the petitioner indulged in any
such or similar offence after registration of the FIR or at any time after
suspension of his sentence. The petitioner has been stated to be around
46 years of age who has suffered the agony of protracted criminal
proceedings. The petitioner is stated to be earlier working as auto
rikshaw driver and currently is working with a security agency.
15. Taking into consideration the fact that the LRs of the
deceased Boota Ram are willing to settle the matter, once and for all
and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence
of 02 months and 13 days out of the total sentence of 1 year imposed
by the learned trial court, this Court is of the considered view that the
present case warrants a reduction in the substantive sentence. The
prolonged pendency of the criminal proceedings, his conduct during
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



8
CRR-818-2009 (O&M)

the period subsequent to registration of the FIR, the absence of any
other criminal involvement as reflected in the custody certificate and
the period of incarceration already undergone are circumstances
which, when cumulatively considered, justify taking a lenient view on
the question of sentence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is satisfied that the ends of justice would be
adequately met by modifying the substantive sentence awarded to the
petitioner to the period already undergone by him.
16. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the
petitioner under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC, the substantive
sentence awarded to him is modified and reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The fine imposed by the learned trial court shall
remain intact. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above
terms. His bail bonds stand discharged. Trial Court records be sent
back. Registry is directed to do the needful.
17 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.
(RAVINDER MALIK)
27.10.2026 JUDGE
Kapil

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
KAPIL
2026.10.31 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document