Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar disposed of a criminal appeal by treating the appellant’s substantive sentence as already undergone and directing payment of an enhanced fine of ₹5,000, with a three-month simple imprisonment in default. The case arose from a 1979 incident in which the accused allegedly struck her mother-in-law with an axe and then struck an elderly relative who intervened; the latter sustained a head injury and died a few days later. While leaving the conviction undisturbed, the Court noted that continuing the remaining custodial sentence would serve no meaningful purpose, given the extraordinary delay in conclusion of the proceedings, and the appellant’s age and infirmities, and accordingly closed the matter.

On 10.07.1979, the accused was alleged to have struck her mother-in-law with an axe and, during the same quarrel, struck an elderly female relative of her husband who intervened. The intervenor sustained a head injury and died four days later, on 20.07.1979.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Grant ‘No Arrest’ Protection Or Fix Investigation Deadlines While Declining To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

A police case was registered at Police Station Bijhama for offences under Sections 326 and 324 of the Ranbir Penal Code. After the injured person died, the offence was converted to Section 302 RPC. The trial concluded with the accused being convicted under Section 304-II RPC and Section 324 RPC.

In assessing the occurrence, the trial court noted the absence of medical evidence indicating a depressed fracture of the skull and treated the incident as arising during a quarrel linked to repeated demands about irrigating maize fields.

In the appeal, the defence did not seek to disturb the conviction and contended that the delay in the proceedings warranted consideration of reduced punishment; reliance was also placed on the appellant’s age and health issues. The record notes that, at admission, the appellant sought consideration of probation under Section 562 CrPC.

The Court observed: “This case bears testimony to the systemic delay in the disposal of criminal cases.” Referring to the law on delay and sentencing, the judgment recorded: “it was held that the right to a speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and extends not only to trial but also to appellate proceedings.” It further noted: “in every case alleging violation of this right, a balancing exercise must be undertaken after considering all attendant and mitigating circumstances.”

On sentencing principles, the Court stated: “while imposing sentence, the Court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” It added: “Sentencing must strike a balance between deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, as the absence of one defeat the purpose of the others.”

Applying these principles, the Court recorded: “the incident occurred on 10.07.1979, the trial continued for more than thirty years culminating in conviction on 16.07.2009, and thereafter another sixteen years were consumed in disposal of the appeal.” It also stated: “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.”

On the incident and mitigating factors, the Court recorded: “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.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Flags Lack Of Funds, Staff And Infrastructure In Ground Water Authority, Directs Chief Secretary To Fix Deficiencies In Groundwater Regulation

The Court directed: “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 ₹5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate with Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate

Case Title: Shameema Begum V/s State through Police Station, Bijhama
Case Number: CRA No. 12/2009
Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar