Srinagar, Dec 30: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has closed the proceedings of a case which was registered 46 years ago and set free the woman, now 70 years of age, who was convicted on charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Shameema Begum, a resident of Uri in Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested on charges of causing grievous injuries to her husband’s grandmother during a scuffle with her mother-in-law in 1979.
The victim died four days after the incident and the state pressed murder charges against the accused. However, during the course of the trial — which lasted 30 years, Begum was convicted under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced to five years rigourous imprisonment in 2009.
She appealed against the sentence before the High Court the same year and sought reduction in the jail term.
Justice Sanjay Parihar quoted several Supreme Court judgements while disposing off the case and set free the 70-year-old woman.
“At the time of admission of the appeal, the appellant had expressed her intention not to challenge the conviction and sought consideration of release on probation under Section 562 CrPC. However, the State indicated its intention to file an appeal, which was never pursued,” the court observed in its five-page order. It said the offence was committed in a heat of passion without premeditation.
“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,” Justice Parihar said.
“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,” he added.
Justice Parihar said this case bears testimony to the systemic delay in the disposal of criminal cases. He said the court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances while sentencing.
“Sentencing must strike a balance between deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation as the absence of one defeat the purpose of the others,” the judge said.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident that the incident occurred on July 10,1979, the trial continued for more than thirty years culminating in conviction on July 16,2009, and thereafter another it took sixteen years for disposal of the appeal, he said.
Justice Parihar said though such delays cannot ordinarily ensure benefit of a convict and 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,” he added. (Agencies)
