Jaspal vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bhalla, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, vide which

he convicted the Appellant u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and he was ordered

to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

Learned Counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the Appellant on merits and confines his

arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned Counsel further submits that a case u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered

against the Appellant in the year 1991. Appellant was convicted by the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri on 21.2.1995. Thereafter, he

filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1995 and now a considerable period of 16 years has elapsed from the date of commission of the

offence. Learned Counsel further submits that during this period, the Appellant has been facing a mental agony of the protracted trial and since then

a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over his head. Learned Counsel prays that a lenient view be taken against the Appellant since

he is an agriculturist by profession and by now he has already crossed over the age of more than 76 years as he was stated to be 60 years of age

at the time of commission of the offence. Learned Counsel further submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also

considering the fact that he has crossed over the age of 76 years, together with the fact that he must have undergone some period of sentence

inside jail during the trial of the case as also after the conviction order passed against the Appellant, a lenient view by way of mercy be taken in the

matter of sentence against the Appellant.

Since the prayer made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, I do

not consider it necessary to recapitulate the facts again in the judgment herein, since they have been narrated in the judgment of the trial Court in

details.

I have considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. It is no doubt true that on account of the

pendency of the appeal for a long period, the Appellant has been facing mental stress persistently for the last 16 years and also the fact that since

then a sword of conviction has been hanging over his head and in such like circumstances, in my considered view, I find force in the submissions

made by the learned Counsel and deserve to be accepted.

After examining the nature of the case in hand and the circumstances under which the offence was committed and also keeping in view the fact

that the Appellant is at the fag end of his life since he has already crossed over the age of 76 years and now sending him to jail again would be

unjust and in such like circumstances, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a lenient view on the quantum of sentence is taken

against the Appellant. Accordingly, conviction against the Appellant u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and sentence of imprisonment

imposed on the Appellant shall stand reduced to the period, which he has already undergone.

With the aforesaid observations in the matter of sentence, the appeal is disposed of.