Testimony To Systemic Delay: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Modifies Sentence Imposed On Woman In 46-Yr-Old Criminal Case

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar held, “This case bears testimony to the systemic delay in the disposal of criminal cases.”

“Considering that the offence was committed in a heat of passion without premeditation, that the appellant has suffered incarceration and the ordeal of prolonged proceedings for over 46 years, and that she is now about seventy years old with age-related infirmities, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the substantive sentence”, it added.

Senior Advocate S. T. Hussain represented the Appellant.

Factual Background

An FIR was registered under Sections 326 and 324 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The victim succumbed to her injuries, whereupon the offence under Section 326 of the RPC was converted to one under Section 302 of the RPC. The appellant was convicted in relation to this incident which occurred in the year 1979. The trial spanned over thirty years. She was convicted under Section 304-II RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. She was convicted under Section 324 of the RPC to one year’s imprisonment. 16 years had already elapsed before finally hearing and deciding the appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the prosecuting agency had not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 of the RPC, nor had it challenged the adequacy of punishment awarded by the trial Court. The Bench observed that while imposing sentence, the Court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. “Sentencing must strike a balance between deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, as the absence of one defeat the purpose of the others”, it added.

The Bench noticed that the incident occurred in the year 1979, the trial continued for more than thirty years culminating in conviction, and thereafter another sixteen years were consumed in disposal of the appeal. “Though such delays cannot ordinarily ensure to the benefit of a convict, the Court cannot remain oblivious to the reality of prolonged pendency of criminal cases, wherein accused persons remain entangled in the criminal justice system for decades. Sentencing, in the present context, must focus on reform and rehabilitation, enabling the offender to realize the wrong committed”, the order read.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the appellant had given a blow with an axe to her mother-in-law and subsequently to the deceased, who was the grandmother of her husband, when the latter intervened during a quarrel. The deceased sustained a head injury and succumbed after four days. The trial Court found that there was no medical evidence indicating a depressed fracture of the skull, and though the injury was grievous, the occurrence was not premeditated but arose in the heat of the moment when the appellant was repeatedly asked to irrigate the maize fields.

Taking note of the fact that the offence was committed in a heat of passion without premeditation, the Bench stated that the appellant had suffered incarceration and the ordeal of prolonged proceedings for over 46 years. Considering that she is about seventy years old with age-related infirmities and no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 304-II RPC, the Bench held, “...the ends of justice would be served by treating the sentence as already undergone and payment of a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.”

Cause Title: Shameema Begum v. State (Case No.: CRA No. 12/2009)

Appearance

Appeallant: Senior Advocate S. T. Hussain, Advocate Nida Nazir

Click here to read/download Order