The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an 80-year-old man in a 1992 criminal case but reduced his sentence to the period already served, considering his advanced age and long incarceration. The Court said it would be harsh and insensitive to send the elderly convict back to jail at this stage of his life.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday modified the sentence of an 80-year-old man convicted in a criminal case dating back to 1992, reducing his punishment to the period of imprisonment he has already undergone, while upholding his conviction.
A Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice N V Anjaria said that courts are expected to show sensitivity, especially in cases involving very old convicts who have already spent several years in jail.
The Court noted that the appellant is now more than 80 years old and has already remained in custody for a total period of six years and three months. While refusing to interfere with the finding of guilt, the Bench considered his advanced age and the long passage of time since the incident to be crucial factors while deciding the sentence.
“The appellant is more than 80 years of age at present. Since the appellant is an aged person, and in the December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind the bars again at this stage. The courts are not supposed to be insensitive,”
the Supreme Court observed.
Taking these aspects into account, the Bench held that there was no need to send the man back to prison at this stage of his life. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
“The appeal stands dismissed subject to the above modification in the sentence,”
the Bench said.
The verdict came on an appeal filed by the man against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had altered his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
The case has its roots in an incident that took place in December 1992. According to the record, an FIR was lodged after a quarrel broke out between the appellant’s son and another person.
The situation soon escalated, leading to a violent clash between two rival groups. During the assault, several people on both sides suffered injuries, and one of the injured later died while undergoing treatment.
In December 1997, the trial court convicted the appellant along with others for multiple offences, including murder, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Challenging this decision, the appellant approached the High Court, which later modified the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC after closely examining the facts.
While analysing the nature of the incident, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the episode was a case of a “free fight”.
The Bench noted that there was chaos and a sudden outburst of anger, with both sides attacking each other, making it difficult to conclude that there was a pre-planned unlawful assembly with a common object to cause death.
“The high court was correct in its approach in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC by assessing the individual role on his part,”
the Bench observed.
The Court also took note of the appellant’s custody history. He was arrested on December 19, 1992, and remained in jail for several years. He was granted bail by the High Court in August 1998. Later, he surrendered on December 6, 2010, and was again granted bail by the Supreme Court on August 5, 2011. In total, his incarceration added up to six years and three months.
Considering all these factors — the age of the appellant, the long duration of imprisonment already undergone, and the circumstances of the offence — the Supreme Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by limiting the sentence to the period already served, while letting the conviction stand.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Mamata Banerjee
