-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“Judicial Discretion Must Consider Gravity of Offence, Passage of Time, and Scope of Reformation”: Punjab and Haryana High Court modified the sentence of a man convicted under Section 411 IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property), reducing his punishment from 1 year rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone—3 months and 12 days.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that “sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but must weigh the individual circumstances, the nature of the crime, and the possibility of reformation”, especially when no minimum sentence is statutorily mandated.
The case dates back to FIR No. 542/2002, registered under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad. The petitioner, Jagdish, was later convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced by the trial court on 7 January 2010 to 1 year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000, and an additional 1 month imprisonment in default of payment. This was upheld by the appellate court on 1 February 2011.
Before the High Court, the conviction was not challenged. Instead, the petitioner limited his plea to modification of the sentence, submitting that he had already undergone 3 months and 12 days in custody and sought leniency given the passage of more than 22 years since the offence, and his conduct during this time.
The Court noted that Section 411 IPC does not prescribe a minimum punishment, thus leaving sentencing open to judicial discretion.
Quoting Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP, (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Court observed:
“Awarding of sentence is not a mere formality… discretion must be exercised bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor overly lenient.”
The Court emphasized that sentencing must reflect both retributive and reformative elements, adding:
“Each case requires a careful balance between the gravity of the offence and the rehabilitative potential of the offender.”
Proportionality, Delay, and Reformation – Key Considerations:
Justice Brar underscored the importance of reformation in sentencing. Referring to Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P., AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Court stated:
“Opportunities of reformation must be granted… punishment should serve both a social purpose and account for individual circumstances.”
Here, the petitioner had already undergone a portion of the sentence, was not a habitual offender, and had suffered the strain of a pending case for over 22 years. The Court held:
“He has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for over two decades… he now wishes to live a peaceful life as a law-abiding citizen.”
Although the State opposed the relief by citing a similar pending case against the petitioner, the Court noted he was already on bail in that matter, and found no legal bar to granting relief in the current case.
Conviction Upheld, Sentence Reduced
The Court held that the conviction was well-reasoned and based on correct appreciation of evidence, and therefore required no interference.
However, in view of:
The absence of a mandatory minimum sentence under Section 411 IPC,
The partial sentence already served,
The passage of 22 years, and
The petitioner’s prospects for reformation,
The Court concluded: “It would be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone.”
The judgment reaffirms the principle that “punishment must fit not just the crime, but the criminal”. In recognising the rehabilitative potential of the petitioner and the extraordinary delay in disposal, the High Court struck a delicate but principled balance between retribution and mercy.
The ruling serves as a precedent on sentencing proportionality, particularly in cases where the accused has already suffered prolonged trial proceedings and is not a habitual criminal.
“Sentencing is not a mechanical ritual—it must reflect fairness, purpose, and proportionality,” the Court made clear.
Date of Decision: 2 July 2025
