Srinagar, Dec 29: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh observed a Uri Woman’s 46 years of proceedings that included her trial spanning over thirty years and the 16-year-old criminal appeal it decided on Monday as “testimony to systemic delay in disposal of criminal cases”.
While deciding the appeal by Shammema Begum, a bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar modified the sentence of the 70-year-old woman who was convicted in a 1979 culpable homicide case.
The modification of the order after the court noted the extraordinary delay in the conclusion of the trial and the appeal, along with the woman’s advanced age and deteriorating health.
“The appellant (woman) 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 court said.
“Thereafter, more than sixteen years have elapsed in finally hearing and deciding the present appeal,” the court added.
Although upholding her conviction under Section 304-II of the Ranbir Penal Code, the Court reduced the substantive sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period the woman had already served. However, the Court enhanced her fine from Rs 2,000 to Rs 5,000.
In default, the woman shall undergo a further sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.
While the Court noted that the offence was not “premeditated” and arose in the heat of the moment during a domestic quarrel, it said: “The appellant was from a modest background residing in a remote area of Uri, was now suffering from age-related infirmities, including impaired eyesight”.
The Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to appellate proceedings and the sentencing must balance deterrence with reform and rehabilitation as it relied on Supreme Court decisions.
Noting that no useful purpose would be served by sending the elderly woman back to prison after 46 years of litigation, the Court concluded that ends of justice stood satisfied with the sentence already undergone by her.