Srinagar: In what it described as “testimony to the systemic delay in disposal of criminal cases”, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Monday closed a case by imposing fine of Rs 5000 on a woman from Uri, who suffered the ordeal of prolonged proceedings for 46 years in an incident of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
Justice Sanjay Parihar disposed of the case of Shameema Begum residing in the Bijhama area of border town of Uri and termed her case a “testimony to the systemic delay in the disposal of criminal cases”.
On July 10, 1979, Shameema and her mother-in-law had a brawl. In a fit of rage, Shameema gave a blow with an axe to her mother-in-law even when the grandmother of her husband, who was nearby, tried to intervene. The victim received the blow in the head and succumbed to injury after four days of the incident.
A case was registered, and presented before the trial court after investigation.
The court, after a trial spanning over 30 years, convicted Shameema under Section 304-II RPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
It concluded that though the injury was grievous, the occurrence was not premeditated. “It arose in the heat of the moment when the convict (Shameema) was repeatedly asked to irrigate the maize fields.”
The trial court also took note of the fact that the convict is a woman and had suffered the agony of a prolonged trial.
It sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of rupees 2,000. It also sentenced her under Section 324 RPC (Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapon or Means) to one year’s imprisonment.
The frail Shameema now in her seventies, appealed against the sentence.
More than 16 years elapsed in finally hearing and deciding her appeal by the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner woman argued that having regard to the inordinate delay in the trial and disposal of the appeal, the appellant’s right to a speedy trial deserves sympathetic consideration.
He submitted that without disturbing the finding of conviction, the mitigating circumstances warranted leniency in sentence.
The bench of Justice Parihar considering the appellant woman’s physical condition, the prolonged duration of trial and pendency of her appeal observed that while imposing sentence, the court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
He said sentencing must strike a balance between deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, as the absence of one defeats the purpose of the others.
“Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident that 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,” observed the judge.
He said “though such delays cannot ordinarily ensure 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.”
He referred to the trial court’s finding “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”.
The bench also cited the trial court’s conclusion of the fact that the appellant is a woman and had suffered the agony of a prolonged trial.
It 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”.
As no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 304-II RPC, the court said “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, the ageing Shameema shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
