Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Jan 7: The High Court while modifying the sentence of an elderly woman in a 46-year-old attempt to murder case termed the prolonged proceedings as a procedural ordeal.
Justice Sanjay Parihar said, 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.
The court modified the sentence citing the prolonged proceedings, advanced age and deteriorating health of appellant-convict. The court disposed of the criminal appeal filed by the Shameema Begum by observing that the case exemplifies systemic delays in the criminal justice system.
The incident in which the appellant-Begum was convicted had occurred on July 10, 1979, while the trial concluded after more than 30 years in 2009 by sentencing her 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine and she approached the High Court to challenge the sentence with present appeal which the court said, remained pending for another 16 years.
“This case bears testimony to the systemic delay in the disposal of criminal cases. The appellant (woman) of remote area of Uri was convicted in relation to an incident dated 10.07.1979, after a trial spanning over thirty years, she was convicted under Section 304-II RPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs 2,000, and also under Section 324 RPC to one year’s imprisonment with a default stipulation of six months, vide judgment dated 16.07.2009,” the Bench said, adding, “Thereafter, more than sixteen years have elapsed in finally hearing and deciding the present appeal”, Justice Parihar recorded.
The court modified her conviction under Section 304-II of the RPC and reduced the substantive sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by her, while enhancing the fine to Rs 5,000, with a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.
Considering that the offence was committed in a heat of passion without premeditation, that the appellant (woman) 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, the court in its considered view said, no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the substantive sentence.
“As no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 304-II RPC, the ends of justice would be served by treating the sentence as already undergone and payment of a fine of Rs 5,000, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months”, the court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
