IN THE

112

Balwinder Singh

State of Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE

Present :- Mr.

Ms.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

The

judgment dated

Judicial Magistrate,

commission of offence

Code, 1860 and

Sr. No.

1

2

3

2. Challenge

Criminal Appeal

whereby the appeal

conviction and order

3. Briefly

17.08.2016, SI Lekh

No. 209 dated

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR- 2590

Date of decision:

Singh

VERSUS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD

Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate,

Ms. SaviNagpal, AAG, Punjab.

*****

BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has

20.12.2018 passed in case No.CHI/130/2017

Magistrate, Fazilka, whereby the petitioner

offence under Section 465, 468

sentenced vide order dated 20.12.2018

Accused Balwinder

Offence Sentence Fine Imprisonment

465 IPC RI 2 years 500/- RI 10

468 IPC RI 2 years 1000/- RI 15

471 IPC RI 2 years 500/- RI 10

Challenge further is to the judgment

Appeal No.28 of 2019 by the Additional

appeal preferred by the petitioner

order of sentence had been dismissed.

Briefly summarised, the facts of the

Lekh Raj of the Recruitment/Bharti

17.08.2016, informed Police Station

PUNJAB & HARYANA

CHANDIGARH

2590-2025(O&M)

decision: 14.11.2025

...Petitioner

...Respondent

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

Advocate, for the petitioner.

been preferred against the

No.CHI/130/2017 by the Chief

petitioner had been convicted for

and 471 of the Indian Penal

20.12.2018 as under:-

Balwinder Singh

Imprisonment in default of fine

10 days

15 days

10 days

judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed in

Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka,

against the said judgment of

ismissed.

the present case are that on

Recruitment/Bharti Cell, Fazilka, vide letter

Station City Fazilka that the

112 CRR

recruitment process

Multipurpose Sports

tests were being

son of Tara Singh,

and Registration

participated in the

the petitioner had

name of Baljinder

on 27.07.2016 in

race and was declared

separate online forms,

in the name as Baljinder

thus attempted

earlier trial. On

465, 468 and 471

petitioner.

4. The

recorded, documents

the challan and documents

5. To

The details of the

tabulated as under:

Sr. No. Prosecution

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

process for the post of Constable

Sports Stadium, Fazilka, from 27.07.2016,

being conducted. On 17.08.2016, the

Singh, appeared with an admit card

Registration No. 204458079. Upon suspicion

the selection process, the records

had also appeared earlier under Roll

Baljinder Singh son of Tara Singh. He

in Batch No. 8, wherein he failed

declared unfit. It thus emerged that

forms, one by filling details as Balwinder

Baljinder Singh, to secure two different

to re-appear in the selection process

On the basis of these allegations,

471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

The matter was investigated, statements

documents collected, whereafter final

documents were duly supplied to

prove its case, the prosecution led

the witnesses as well as the documents

under:-

Prosecution Witnesses

2

Constable was underway at the

27.07.2016, wherein physical

the petitioner, Balwinder Singh

card bearing Roll No. 8219844

suspicion that he had earlier

records were verified, revealing that

Roll No. 8110167 under the

had participated in the trials

failed to qualify the 1600-metre

that the petitioner had filled two

Balwinder Singh and another

different roll numbers and had

process despite failing in the

an FIR under Sections 420,

1860, was registered against the

statements of witnesses were

final report was filed. Copies of

to the petitioner.

led as many as 06 witnesses.

documents exhibited by them is

Documents Exhibited

112 CRR

1. PW -

2. PW -

3. PW -

4. PW -

5. PW -

6. PW -

6. After

of the petitioner

Procedure, wherein

were put to him.

described the prosecution

asserted his innocence.

7. After

ofwitnesses and

Magistrate, Fazilka

under Sections 465,

was discharged for

8. Aggrieved

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

-1 SI Lekh Raj  Computer

(Ex.P1)

 Admit

Singh

 Admit

Singh

 Application

respectively)

 Result

-2 ASI Karnail Singh  --

-3 HC Harbans Singh  Arrest

 Personal

 Intimation

-4 Hari Singh  Snap

and P4/B)

-5 ASI Lekh Raj  ---

-6 ASI Tilak Raj  FIR (Ex.P6/A)

 Site Plan

 Notice

After the conclusion of the prosecution

petitioner was recorded under Section 313of

wherein all incriminating circumstancesand

him. The petitioner denied the allegations

prosecution case and evidence

innocence. He however did not examine

After considering the arguments

and the evidence placed on record,

Fazilka convicted the petitioner of

465, 468 and 471 of the Indian

for offence under Section 420 Indian

Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner

3

Computer record of Baljinder Singh

(Ex.P1)

Admit Card under the name of Balwinder

(Ex.P2)

Admit Card under the name of Baljinder

(Ex.P3)

Application Forms (Ex.P4 and P5

respectively)

Result Sheet (Ex. P6)

Arrest Memo (Ex.P3/A)

Personal Search Memo (Ex.P3/B)

Intimation memo (Ex.P3/C)

on both the applications (Ex.P4/A

P4/B)

(Ex.P6/A)

Plan (Ex.P6/B)

Notice issued to accused (Ex.P6/C)

prosecution evidence, the statement

313of the Code of Criminal

circumstancesand evidence on record

allegations in their entirety,

asfalse and fabricated, and

examine any witness in defence.

advanced, the testimonies

record, the Chief Judicial

commission of the offences

Indian Penal Code, 1860 while he

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

petitioner preferred an appeal before

112 CRR

the Court of Sessions

2019. The said

Fazilka vide judgment

9. Learned

contended that the

and had participated

that the signatures

pertain to one ‘

attributed to the

27.07.2016. It

himself under

established nor linked

ought to be given

in the event the

petitioner, the sentence

the petitioner is

prosecution for

young boy at the

public employment

There was no

process.

10. State

have examined

finding of conviction

neither new line

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

Sessions Judge, Fazilka bearing

appeal was dismissed by the

judgment dated 16.09.2025. Hence,

Learned counsel appearing for the

the petitioner never appeared in

participated only in the test conducted on

signatures appearing in the attendance

‘Baljinder Singh’, and the same

the petitioner Balwinder Singh,

is argued that the identity of

the roll number used on 17.08.2016

linked to the petitioner, and therefore

given to the petitioner. The second

the Court does not find merit in the

sentence awarded to the petitioner

not involved in any other case and

a period of nearly 09 years. Besides,

the relevant point of time and while

employment for himself may have, out

intention of taking away anyone

State counsel, on the other hand, contends

the evidence brought on record

conviction against the petitioner.

line of defence can be adopted nor

4

Criminal Appeal No.28 of

Additional Sessions Judge,

Hence, the instant revision petition.

the petitioner has vehemently

any subsequent physical test

on 27.07.2016. It is submitted

attendance register dated 17.08.2016

same cannot, by any stretch, be

who had appeared only on

the person, who presented

17.08.2016, has neither been

therefore the benefit of the same

argument advanced was that

the contention raised by the

petitioner be reduced considering that

and he has faced the criminal

Besides, the petitioner was a

while being keen on securing a

out of anxiety, taken the step.

anyone else‘s right in the said

contends that both the Courts

and concurrently recorded a

In a revisional jurisdiction,

nor any reappreciation of the

112 CRR

evidence can be

pointed out by the

upsetting the findings

Courts.

11. I have

respective parties

as well as the do

12. Insofar

failed to establish

is concerned,

contradicted by

reveals that the

suggestions that

signed them. It

application forms,

of Balwinder Singh,

signed both the

the petitioner‘s case

factual position

the photographs

petitioner‘s signature

supporting certificates.

appeared and parti

for any other person

have the roll number

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

be undertaken. There is no illegality

the petitioner, hence, there is no

findings recorded or the sentence awarded

have heard learned counsel appearing

parties and have gone through the judgments

documents appended along with the

Insofar as the petitioner‘s submission

establish that he had in fact appeared under

this contention is clearly an

the record. A perusal of the judgment

the specific defence taken by

that he himself had filled both application

is also the case set up in defence

forms, the name was wrongly entered

Singh, hence, he filled the second

application forms as Balwinder

case that he did not fill up the forms

is further fortified by the record,

photographs affixed on both forms are identical,

signature as Balwinder Singh and is

certificates.Besides, on the earlier

participated in the selection process.

person to participate in the same

number and the specific details. No

5

illegality or perversity that has been

no occasion that would call for

awarded and affirmed by the

appearing on behalf of the

judgments passed by the Courts

the present petition.

submission that the prosecution

under the second roll number

an afterthought and stands

judgment of the Trial Court

the petitioner through his

application forms and had duly

defence that since in one of the

entered as Baljinder Singh instead

form as well and that he had

Balwinder Singh. Hence, it is not even

forms as Baljinder Singh. This

record, which clearly shows that

identical, and each form bears the

is accompanied by the same

occasion, a candidate had

process. There was no occasion

same as the other person would

No reference is made to the

112 CRR

evidence to show

defence was raised

appeared in the

there would have

to be advanced

Having not disputed

suggestion put to

313 Cr.P.C., such

stage of the revisional

attempting to introduce

that was never asserted

impermissible.

13. It would

the learned Additional

The same are extracted

”16.

the

were

person

the

that

further

department

which

hence,

documents.

counsel

miserable

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

show that such a suggestion was made

raised in 313 Cr.P.C. statement

the first test. Besides, had the petitioner

have been no cause of suspicion at all.

by the petitioner was never part

disputed his appearance in the selection

to the prosecution witnesses or in

such a line of defence cannot be

revisional jurisdiction. It is thus evident

introduce an entirely new defence

asserted before the Trial Court,

would also be apposite to advert

Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka

extracted as under:-

16. The first arguments raised

accused is that the documents

were not filled by the accused but were

person from a cyber café who made

first form due to which second

that hence there is no forgery committed

further argued that the admit cards

department and roll number was also

which shows that the accused had

hence, cannot be held responsible

documents. However, both the above

counsel for accused are bereft of

miserable failed to prove that he had

6

made to the witnesses or such

that the petitioner had not

petitioner not appeared earlier,

all.The argument now sought

part of his defence during trial.

selection process either in the

in his statement under Section

permitted to be taken at the

evident that the petitioner is

defence at this belated stage, one

and such a course is legally

advert to the findings recorded by

while dismissing the appeal.

raised by learned counsel for

documents ie. two online applications

were got filled by some other

made typographical mistake in

form was filled. It is prayed

committed by the accused. It is

cards were issued by the

also issued by the department

had no role in the same and

responsible for creation of fake/forged

above said arguments of learned

any merit. The accused has

had filled online forms with the

112 CRR

help

name

name

uploaded

denied

from

accused

application

Baljinder

disputed,

filled

the

reading

accused,

application

other

accused,

to establish

17.

having

number

Singh

same

by

application

provisional

photographs

Baljinder

issued

for

him

18.

accused

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

help of some person at a cyber cafe.

name of Balwinder Singh (also as

name of Baljinder Singh (also

uploaded signatures of the accused.

denied his signatures on these applications

from the cross-examination of PWs

accused in his statement under Section

application forms both in the names

Baljinder Singh contains signatures

disputed, the only reasonable conclusion

filled by the accused. Moreover, the

post of Constable which means

reading the contents. Apart from

accused, there is nothing on file

application forms were not filled by

other person. Once the forms contains

accused, the prosecution is not required

establish from where the said forms

The next contention is

having roll number 8219844 and admit

number 8110167 in the name of Balwinder

Singh respectively have been issued

same stands done on the basis of online

the accused. Thus, it is the accused

applications with false particulars

provisional admit cards in favour

photographs but with different names

Baljinder Singh. Therefore, merely

issued admit cards or allotted the roll

the accused to escape his liability

him to generate these documents.

Another point raised

accused is not proved on the date of

7

cafe. The form Ex.P2 in the

as Ex.P4/A and Ex.P3 in the

as Ex.P4/B) contains the

accused. The accused has no where

applications forms as is clear

PWs and the stand taken by the

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Once the

names of Balwinder Singh and

signatures of accused which are not

conclusion is that the forms were

the accused filled the form for

that he signed the same after

the bald averments of the

file to show that these online

by the accused but by some

contains the signatures of the

required to prove I.P. address as

forms were uploaded.

that the admit card Ex.P1/5

admit card Ex.P3 having roll

Balwinder Singh and Baljinder

issued by the department but the

online applications submitted

accused who submitted false

resulting in creation of two

favour of the accused having his

names ie. Balwinder Singh and

merely because the department

roll numbers is not a ground

liability and the role played by

is that the presence of the

of the test and he only came

112 CRR

to the

However,

the

test

came

number

accused

appear

during

of accused

appeared

some

could

Trial

was

offence

ground

sheet

Ex.P1/1

Singh

contains

8219844

prove

of attendance

No

20.08.2016,

complaint

took

channels

the

this

arrested

the

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

the ground and did not use the

However, from the testimonies of PW1

accused had also appeared on

test and had failed in 1600 meter race.

came again on 17.08.2016 with another

number in the test ground is in itself

accused had used the roll number/admit

appear for the test again. PW1 has

during the process of physical test,

accused was checked and it was

appeared for the exams of physical

some other roll number/admit card.

could cheat the recruitment cell, he

Trial Court has rightly concluded

was not completed. However, the culpability

offence u/s 465, 468 and 471 IPC

ground in view of the discussion above

sheet of physical test on 27.07.2016

Ex.P1/1 and the list Ex.P1/2 also shows

Singh had appeared on 17.08.2016

contains the test that Baljinder

8219844 failed in the test. All these

prove the presence of accused on 27.07.2016

attendance sheet is not fatal to

doubt, in the case at hand,

20.08.2016, whereas the incident

complaint by PW1 is dated 17.08.2016

took place during the recruitment

channels had to forward the complaint

delay of registration of FIR i.e.

this case. The contention that the fact

arrested on the same day ie.on 17.08.2016

veracity of the claim of the

8

the roll number/admit card.

PW1 and PWS, it is clear that

27.07.2016 for the physical

race. The fact that the accused

another admit card and roll

itself sufficient to prove that the

number/admit card and wanted to

has clearly stated that when

due to suspicion, the record

was found that he had already

physical test on previous date with

card. Hence, before the accused

was caught. As such, the Ld.

that the offence of cheating

culpability of the accused for

IPC is duly established on the

above and herein. The result

27.07.2016 is also proved on the file as

shows that accused Baljinder

17.08.2016 also. The list Ex.P1/3

Singh having roll number

these documents are sufficient to

27.07.2016 and mere absence

the case of the prosecution.

the FIR was registered on

incident is of 17.08.2016 but the

17.08.2016 and since the offence

recruitment process, the necessary

complaint for processing. Hence,

e. after 3 days is not fatal in

fact that the accused was not

17.08.2016 raised doubt against

prosecution is not tenable

112 CRR

because

process

19.

of the

reasoned

on

both

was

different

mere

"Balwinder

intent

apparent

the

first

the

numbers

offence

under

documents

second

such,

doubt

was

forms

forged

u/s

20.

show

Court.

appellant/accused

custody

undergo

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

because at that time, the officials were

process and were not to arrest the people.

Coming to the judgment

the same shows that the Court

reasoned order duly appreciating

the file and meeting the arguments/contentions

both sides. The learned Trial Court

was the accused who had filed

different names i.e. Baljinder Singh

mere both the forms contains

"Balwinder Singh" does not mean that

intent or mensrea on the part of accused.

apparent from the fact that the accused

second time in the physical test

first attempt and on the basis of two

accused under different names,

numbers were generated. Hence, the

offence of forgery and preparation

under Section 465 IPC. The accused

documents when he reported in the

second day. Hence, he used the forged

such, offence under Section 471 IPC

doubt the Ld. Trial Court has held

was completed but the fact that the

forms out of which one was with the

forged admit card for purpose of ch

468 IPC is made out.

Accordingly, the appellant/accused

show 20. any ground to interfere in

Court. The impugned judgment upheld.

appellant/accused is dismissed. The

custody and his custody warrants be

undergo the sentence imposed by

9

were on duty for recruitment

people.

judgment of the Trial Court, perusal

Court has passed detailed and

the entire evidence brought

arguments/contentions raised by

Court has rightly concluded that it

online applications by two

Singh and Balwinder Singh and

signatures of the name

that there was any absence of

accused. Mensrea and intent is

accused has come to appear for

test despite having failed the

two online application forms by

names, two admit card and roll

the accused is liable for the

preparation of forged document i.e.

accused also used the said forged

the ground for the physical test

forged document as genuine. As

IPC is also duly made out. No

held that the offence of cheating

the accused filled two online

the wrong name to obtain the

cheating, as such the offence

appellant/accused has failed to

in the findings of the Ld. Trial

upheld. The appeal of the

The accused is taken into

be issued so as to make him

by the Ld. Trial Court vide

112 CRR

judgment

returned

the

14. It is

substantive arguments

Courts is concerned

same were dealt

conclusions were

said to be perverse

adduced by the

revisionaljurisdiction,

findings recorded

findings recorde

the evidence, the

15. In view

petitioner is dismissed

hereby affirmed.

16. The

imposed upon the

17. Counsel

probation contending

case. He has already

nearly nine years

Sending him to custody

18. State

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

judgment dated 20.12.2018. Record

returned along with copy of this judgment.

record room.”

is evident from the perusal of the

arguments that were raised by the

concerned (which such argument has

alt with by reference to the

were drawn on the basis thereof.

perverse or not sustainable on an objective

the prosecution to establish its

jurisdiction, the High Court would not

recorded by the Courts below for an

recorded are sustainable and plausible,

the same would ordinarily be upheld.

view of the above, the challenge

dismissed and the judgments recorded

affirmed.

The same thus leads next to the question

the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued

contending that the petitioner is not involved

already undergone the agony of a

years and is now married with two ch

custody would have a devastating

State Counsel has, however, opposed

10

Record of Ld. Trial Court be

judgment. File be consigned to

the same that insofar as the

the petitioner before both the

has not been raised here), the

specific evidence and the

Said conclusions cannot be

objective reading of the evidence

its case. While sitting in a

not ordinarily substitute the

an opinion of its own. If the

plausible, on a meaningful reading of

upheld.

challenge to the conviction of the

recorded by both the Courts are

question of quantum of sentence

argued for claiming the benefit of

involved in any other criminal

a protracted criminal trial for

children dependent upon him

devastating impact on his family.

opposed the prayer for grant of

112 CRR

probation and

orchestrated attempt

filing two separate

to take an undue

rightful opportunity.

judgment.

19. The

is not involved in

of actual custody

20. I have

quantum of sentence

21. The

govern the Courts

made to the judgment

Punjab Vs. Prem

paragraphs are extracted

“5. Whether

recourse

doctrine

facts

the

accused

public

the

Constitution

6. There

must

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

contended that the conduct of

attempt to subvert a fair and competitive

separate application forms under different

undue advantage and deprive other meritorious

opportunity. Such conductcannot be

The State Counsel, however, does not

in any other criminal case and has

custody out of the total sentence of 2 years.

have heard learned counsel for the

sentence as well.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid

Courts in the matter of sentencing.

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Prem Sagar & Ors reported as (2008)

extracted as follows:-

Whether the Court while awarding

recourse to the principle of deterrence

doctrine of proportionality, would

facts and circumstances of each case.

nature of the offence said to have

accused plays an important role.

public health must be dealt with severely.

courts must notice the object for

Constitution of India.

There are certain offences which tou

must remind ourselves that even while

11

of the petitioner reflects an

competitive recruitment process by

different names, thereby seeking

meritorious candidates of their

viewed as a mere error of

not dispute that the petitioner

has undergone about 3 months

years.

the respective parties on the

laid down certain principles to

sentencing. Reference in this regard is

Court in the matter of State of

(2008) 7 SCC 550. The relevant

awarding a sentence would take

deterrence or reform or invoke the

would no doubt depend upon the

case. While doing so, however,

have been committed by the

role. The offences which affect

severely. For the said purpose,

for enacting Article 47 of the

touch our social fabric. We

while introducing the doctrine

112 CRR

of plea

types

While

in mind.

7. A sentence

to after

goal

providing

section

Section

Criminal

provisions

sentence

relevant

one

8. Although

the

the

his

9. What

question

superior

which

Whereas

similar

where

found

in regard

10. In Dhananjoy

1994

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

plea bargaining in the Code of

types of offences had been kept

While imposing sentences, the said

mind.

sentence is a judgment on conviction

after a person is convicted of the

goal of any justice-delivery system.

providing for a hearing on sentence

section (2) of Section 235, sub-section

Section 325 as also Sections 360

Criminal Procedure, has laid down

provisions lay down the principle that

sentence must take into consideration

relevant factors; sociological backdrop

one of them.

Although a wide discretion has been

same must be exercised judiciously.

circumstances in which the crime

mental state. Age of the accused

What would be the effect of the sentencing

question which has been left unanswered

superior courts have come across

which go to show anomalies as regards

Whereas the quantum of punishment

similar type of offence varies from

where same sentence is imposed,

found to be different. Similar discrepancies

regard to imposition of fine.

Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of

1994 SCC (Cri) 358] this Court held

“15. … Imposition of appropriate

manner in which the courts

for justice against the criminals.

12

Criminal Procedure, certain

out of the purview thereof.

said principles should be borne

conviction of a crime. It is resorted

the offence. It is the ultimate

system. Parliament, however, in

sentence, as would appear from sub-

section (2) of Section 248,

360 and 361 of the Code of

down certain principles. The said

that the court in awarding the

consideration a large number of

backdrop of the accused being

been conferred upon the court,

judiciously. It would depend upon

crime has been committed and

accused is also relevant.

sentencing on the society is a

unanswered by the legislature. The

across a large number of cases

regards the policy of sentencing.

punishment for commission of a

minimum to maximum, even

imposed, the principles applied are

discrepancies have been noticed

of W.B. [(1994) 2 SCC 220:

held : (SCC p. 239, para 15):

appropriate punishment is the

respond to the society's cry

criminals. Justice demands that

112 CRR

12.

Gujarat

Court

“7.

claims

people

through

cross

new

sentencing

lawlessness

Protection

be

appropriate

edifice

society.

‘State

decisive

Therefore,

the

By deft

be,

and

the

for

nature

are

consideration.”

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

courts should impose punishment

that the courts reflect public abhorrence

Xxxxx

In a recent decision in Shailesh

ujarat [(2006) 2 SCC 359 : (2006)

Court opined : (SCC pp. 361-62, para

The law regulates social interests,

claims and demands. Security of persons

people is an essential function of the

through instrumentality of criminal

cross-cultural conflict where living

new challenges and the courts are

sentencing system to meet the challenges.

lawlessness would undermine social

Protection of society and stamping

the object of law which must

appropriate sentence. Therefore, law

edifice of ‘order’ should meet the

society. Friedman in his Law in Changing

‘State of criminal law continues

decisive reflection of social consciousness

Therefore, in operating the entencing

corrective machinery or deterrence

deft modulation, sentencing process

and tempered with mercy where

and given circumstances in each case,

manner in which it was planned

commission of the crime, the

nature of weapons used and all other

relevant facts which would

consideration.”

13

punishment befitting the crime so

abhorrence of the crime.”

Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of

(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 499] this

para 7)

interests, arbitrates conflicting

persons and property of the

the State. It could be achieved

criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a

living law must find answer to the

are required to mould the

challenges. The contagion of

social order and lay it in ruins.

stamping out criminal proclivity must

must be achieved by imposing

law as a cornerstone of the

the challenges confronting the

Changing Society stated that:

to be—as it should be—a

consciousness of society.’

entencing system, law should adopt

deterrence based on factual matrix.

process be stern where it should

where it warrants to be. The facts

case, the nature of the crime,

planned and committed, the motive

conduct of the accused, the

other attending circumstances

would enter into the area of

112 CRR

Relying

State

Court

award

offence

etc.

18. Don

Sentencing

“It

indeed

‘disparity’

prerogative

carries

on

otherwise

variati

The

sentencing

disparate.

seriousness

offender.

rationally

characteristics

justified,

are

time.

identical,

involves

be

variation

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

Relying upon the decision of this Court

State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471

Court furthermore held that it was

award proper sentence having regard

offence and the manner in which it

etc.

xxx

Don M. Gottfredson in his essay on

Sentencing by Hyman Gross and Andrew

is a common claim in the literature

indeed in the popular press that

‘disparity’ in sentencing. The word

prerogative and the concept of

carries with it the connotation of biased

the part of the judges. This is

otherwise valid criticism has failed

variation from the unjustified variation

The phrase ‘unwarranted disparity’

sentencing variation should be considered

disparate. Much of it properly reflects

seriousness in the offense and/or varying

offender. Dispositional variation that

rationally relevant and understandably

characteristics of the offender and

justified, beneficial and proper, so long

carefully monitored for consistency

time. Moreover, since no two

identical, the labeling of variation

involves a value judgment, that is,

simply justified variation to another.

variation takes the form of differing

14

Court in Sevaka Perumal v.

: 1991 SCC (Cri) 724] this

was the duty of every court to

regard to the nature of the

it was executed or committed,

on “Sentencing Guidelines” in

Andrew von Hirsch opines:

literature of criminal justice and

that there is considerable

word ‘disparity’ has become a

‘sentencing disparity’ now

biased or insidious practices

is unfortunate in that much

failed to separate justified

variation referred to as disparity.

disparity’ may be preferred; not all

considered unwarranted or

reflects varying degrees of

varying characteristics of the

that is based upon permissible,

understandably distinctive

of the offense may be wholly

long as the variable qualities

consistency and desirability over

offenses or offenders are

variation as disparity necessarily

disparity to one person may

another. It is only when such

differing sentences for similar

112 CRR

offenders

disparate.”

The learned

“In

to whether

by statutory

the

19. Kevin

“Sentencing

“All

rules

resolved

relevant

forbidden

sentencing

differently

sentence

offenders

a guideline

criminal

obtained

Another

designers

permitted

as mitigating

the

the

treatment?

of economic,

offense?

part

peer

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

offenders committing similar offenses

disparate.”

learned author further opines:

“In many jurisdictions, judicial discretion

whether or not to incarcerate an

statutory maxima, leaving a broad

length of sentence.”

Kevin R. Reitz in Encyclopædia of Crime

“Sentencing Guidelines” states:

“All guideline jurisdictions have found

rules that identify the factual issues

resolved under the guidelines,

relevant to a sentencing decision,

forbidden considerations that may

sentencing courts. One heated

differently across jurisdictions,

sentence should be based exclusively

offenders have been convicted (conviction

guideline sentence should also

criminal conduct for which formal

obtained (non-conviction offenses).

Another difficult issue of fact finding

designers has been the degree to which

permitted to consider the personal

mitigating factors when imposing

defendant a single parent with

defendant a drug addict but

treatment? Has the defendant struggled

economic, social or educational

offense? Was the defendant's criminal

part by youth, inexperience, or an

peer pressure? Most guideline States,

15

offenses that it can be considered

(emphasis supplied)

discretion is nearly unlimited as

individual; and bound only

broad range of discretion, as to

Crime and Justice, 2

nd

Edn.,

found it necessary to create

issues at sentencing that must be

those that are potentially

decision, and those viewed as

not be taken into account by

heated controversy, addressed

is whether the guideline

exclusively on crimes for which

(conviction offenses), or whether

also reflect additional alleged

formal convictions have not been

finding at sentence for guideline

which trial Judges should be

personal characteristics of offenders

imposing sentence. For example : Is

young children at home? Is

a good candidate for drug

struggled to overcome conditions

educational deprivation prior to the

criminal behavior explicable in

an unformed ability to resist

States, once again including all

112 CRR

jurisdictions

latitude

Judge's

States,

exacerbated

placed

factors

permitted

‘amenability’

20. Andrew

of

proportionality

1.

2.

3.

4.

22. The

reformative, hence,

psychological and

nature and manner

reaction of the offence;

be taken into consideration.

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

jurisdictions with voluntary guidelines,

titude to sentence outside of the guideline

Judge's assessment of such offender

States, fearing that race or class

exacerbated by unguided consideration

placed limits on the list of eligible

factors may indirectly affect the

permitted to base departures on

‘amenability’ to probation (Frase, 1997).]”

Andrew von Hirsch and Nils Jareborg

determining sentence into

proportionality while determining a

What interests are violated or

case of the crime—physical integrity,

amenity, freedom from humiliation,

Effect of violating those interests

of a typical victim—minimum wellbeing,

being, significant enhancement.

Culpability of the offender.

Remoteness of the actual harm

man.

(See Andrew Ashworth : Sentencing

2005, 4th Edn.)”

The purpose of sentencing being

hence, while sentencing of an

and sociological circumstances

manner of committing the offence;

offence; the antecedents and tendencies

consideration.

16

guidelines, allow trial court's

guideline ranges based on the

offender characteristics. Some

class disparities might be

consideration of such factors, have

eligible concerns. [However, such

sentence, since Judges are

on the offender's particular

1997).]”

Jareborg have divided the process

stages of determining

a sentence, namely:

threatened by the standard

integrity, material support and

humiliation, privacy and autonomy.

interests on the living standards

wellbeing, adequate well-

enhancement.

harm as seen by a reasonable

Sentencing and Criminal Justice,

being both deterrent as well as

an accused factors, such as

of an accused; the gravity,

the consequences, the social

tendencies of an accused should

112 CRR

23. I find

petitioner for considering

punishment in view

relevant factors

(i)

when

unemployed,

appointment.

(ii)

any

pendency

that

reintegrated

(iii)

of nearly

(iv)

who

criminal

his

undue

(v)

reoffending.

24. It appears

product of any

ill-conceived anxiety

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

find some force in the submissions

considering his case sympathetically

view of the facts of the case and position

may be culled out as under:-

The petitioner was nearly 27 years

when the offence in question

unemployed,he might just be desperate

appointment.

There is no record of the petitioner

any other similar criminal offence,

pendency or after the conclusion of

that the petitioner has reformed

reintegrated into the mainstream of

(iii) The petitioner has faced rigors

nearly 09 years.

(iv) The petitioner is now married

who are entirely dependent upon

criminal proceedings and incarceration

ability to provide for and raise his

undue hardship to innocent dependants.

There is nothing on record to

reoffending.

appears that the conduct constituting

inherent criminal propensity, but

anxiety and over-zealousness to secure

17

submissions made by counsel for the

sympathetically on the quantum of

position in law as above. The

years of age as on the date

question was committed. Being

desperate for seeking a public

petitioner having been involved in

offence, either prior to or during the

of the present case, indicating

reformed himself and successfully

of society.

of criminal trial for a period

and has two young children

upon him. Continued rigour of

incarceration would gravely impede

his children, thereby causing

dependants.

to suggest any probability of

constituting the offence was not the

but instead stemmed from an

secure public employment. In

112 CRR

the considered view

met in the peculiar

latitude and leniency.

25. In view

The sentence imposed

passed in case No.CHI/130/2017

for commission

Penal Code, 1860

26. Pending

14.11.2025

SumitGusain

Whether speaking/reasoned

Whether reportable

CRR-2590-2025(O&M)

view of this Court, the ends of

peculiar facts of the present case by

leniency.

view of the aforesaid, the present

imposed upon the petitioner vide

No.CHI/130/2017 by the Chief

commission of offence under Section 465,

1860 is ordered to be reduced to the

Pending application(s), if any, shall

(VINOD

speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

reportable : Yes/No

18

justice would be adequately

by extending some degree of

present appeal is partly allowed.

vide judgment dated 20.12.2018

Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka,

465, 468 and 471 of the Indian

the period already undergone.

shall stand disposed of.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

JUDGE