Harwinder Pal Singh @ Vicky vs State Of Punjab
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
-
Harwinder Pal Singh @ Vicky
State of Punjab
MANJU
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
The prosecution in order to prove its case, had examined PW1
– L/SC Geeta Grower, PW2- ASI Jaspal Singh, PW3- SI Balwinder Singh,
PW4- ASI Avtar Singh and PW-5 Inspector Lachhman Singh and report of
Chemical examiner was proved in evidence. Statement of the accused under
Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded in which all the
incriminating circumstances and evidence was put to him, which he denied
and pleaded innocence.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going
MANJU
through the evidence brought on record, the trial Court came to the
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
conclusion that prosecution has not been able to connect the co-accused
Omkar Singh alias Babu with the present case and accordingly was
acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt.
However, the learned trial court held that the prosecution had successfully
proved its case in bringing home the guilt against the present appellant and
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.25000/-
and in default of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 06
months
5. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submits
that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction and prays for
reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant on account of the fact that
he has already undergone more than one year out of total sentence of 02
years as recovery effected from him was of non-commercial quantity; sole
bread earner for his family; and the appellant is facing the agony of
criminal prosecution for about last 04 years, therefore taking a lenient view,
remaining substantive sentence of imprisonment of the appellant may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody.
7. Per Contra, learned state counsel has filed the custody
certificate, which is taken on record and submits that the appellant was
found in conscious possession of intoxicant tablets containing ‘Alprazolam’
and therefore, no leniency be shown to him. It is further submitted that the
learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution,
has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, prays for the
MANJU
dismissal of the present appeal. Learned State counsel has submitted that,
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
the appellant has undergone 01 year and 12 days actual sentence out of total
sentence of 02 years and appellant is involved in 02 other cases i.e. one
under NDPS Act and other under Excise Act.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant fairly submits that
the appellant was involved in two other FIRs back in the year 2019,
however he was released on probation in both the said cases in the year
2023.
9. Heard learned counsel for parties at length.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has contained his prayer
to the extent that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period
already undergone. The record of the present case is perused thoroughly, as
11. All these facts are the relevant mitigating circumstances
specifically in light of the fact that during this interregnum period, as per
learned State counsel, the appellant has not been found involved in any
other case which demonstrates that the appellant has maintained a clean
record.
12. Further, the above said observation has to be considered in the
light of the settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
MANJU
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
Court of India in case of “ Uggarsain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC
109: 2023 SCC Online SC 755” that the Courts have to apply the principle
of proportionality while imposing a sentence. It was observed that:
“10. This court has, time and again, stated that the principle of
proportionality should guide the sentencing process. In Ahmed
Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, 2009 [8]
SCR 719 it was held that the sentence should "deter the
criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the)
law," and the endeavour should be to impose an "appropriate
sentence." The court also held that imposing "meagre
sentences" "merely on account of lapse of time" would be
counterproductive.Likewise, in Jameel v. State of U.P., 2009
[15] SCR712 while advocating that sentencing should be fact
dependent exercises, the court also emphasised that "the 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."
11. Again, in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, 2012 [8]
SCR 189 the court stressed that it "is the duty of the court to
see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to
the commission of the crime and its impact on the social
order" and that sentencing includes "adequate punishment". In
B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration 1974 (1) SCR 222 , the
court considered the issue of punishment and observed that
punishment is designed to protect society by deterring
MANJU
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
potential offenders as well as prevent the guilty party from
repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender
and reclaim him as a law-abiding citizen for the good of the
society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive
aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial
thinking while determining the question of awarding
appropriate sentences.
12. In Shyam Sunder v Puran &Anr 1990 Suppl [1] SCR 662 ,
the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I
IPC. The appellate court reduced the sentence to the term of
imprisonment already undergone, i.e., six months. However, it
enhanced the fine. This court ruled that sentence awarded was
inadequate.Proceeding further, it opined that"... The court in
fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into
consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in
which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by
the offender. The measure of punishment should be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The sentence
imposed by the High Court appears to be so grossly and
entirely inadequate as to involve a failure of justice. We are of
opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the sentence has to be
enhanced...". This court enhanced the sentence to one of
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. This court
has emphasized, in that sentencing depends on the facts, and
the adequacy is determined by factors such as "the nature of
crime, the manner in which it is committed, the propensity
shown and the brutality reflected" [ RavdaSashikala v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 2017 [2] SCR 379 ]. Other decisions, like:
State of M.P. v. Bablu 2014 [9]S.C.R. 467 ; Raj Kumar 2013
(5) SCR 979 and State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi 2015 (3)
SCR 590 too, have stressed the significance and importance of
MANJU
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
imposing appropriate, "adequate" or "proportionate"
punishments.”
13. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654 , wherein, having regard to the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and
other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced.
The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in
the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced
hereunder:
"23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining
conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the
substantive sentence considering long passage of time,
absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating
circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar v. State of
Uttar Pradesh , while maintaining conviction for offences
including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced
the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence
already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without
any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct
is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The
appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal
proceedings for over a decade since 2014."
MANJU
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-
MANJU
2026.11.04 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document