Right To Speedy Trial Extends To Appeals: J&K&L High Court Closes 46-Yr Old Criminal Case On Grounds Of Delay
Reflecting the human consequences of prolonged criminal litigation, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has brought to a close a criminal case arising out of an incident of 1979, holding that continuation of the substantive sentence would serve no meaningful purpose.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while deciding a criminal appeal pending since 2009, treated the sentence as already undergone, keeping in view the extraordinary delay, the age and infirmities of the appellant, and the reformative goals of sentencing.
At the threshold, the High Court recorded its concern over the staggering delay that marked the case, observing in clear terms,
“This case bears testimony to the systemic delay in the disposal of criminal cases. The appellant was convicted in relation to an incident dated 10.07.1979… Thereafter, more than sixteen years have elapsed in finally hearing and deciding the present appeal.”
The case originated from an FIR registered in 1979 for offences under Sections 326 and 324 of the Ranbir Penal Code. After the injured victim succumbed to her injuries the offence under Section 326 RPC was converted to one under Section 302 RPC. However, upon completion of a trial that spanned more than thirty years, the appellant, Shameema Begum, was convicted on 16 July 2009 only under Section 304-II RPC and Section 324 RPC, and not for murder.
Before the High Court, the appellant did not assail the conviction. Her counsel sought indulgence only on the question of sentence, urging that the inordinate delay in trial and appeal deserved sympathetic consideration. The Court noted the personal circumstances of the appellant, including her advanced age, physical infirmities, modest socio-economic background, and residence in a far-flung area of Uri in the Kashmir Valley.
The Court also recorded that there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent State and that the prosecution had not challenged either the acquittal under Section 302 RPC or the adequacy of the sentence awarded by the trial court.
While examining the constitutional dimension of delay, the High Court reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court and made the following categorical observation,
“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.”
The Court further emphasised that allegations of violation of this right cannot be examined mechanically and require a nuanced approach. It stated,
“In every case alleging violation of this right, a balancing exercise must be undertaken after considering all attendant and mitigating circumstances.”
Turning to the philosophy of punishment, Justice Parihar placed strong reliance on the reformative theory of sentencing. Quoting settled principles, the Court observed,
“Sentencing must be reformative rather than retributive and rehabilitation of the offender is a primary goal of modern penology.”
Elaborating that sentencing is not a one-dimensional exercise and must account for a range of competing considerations the court remarked,
“A proper sentence is an amalgam of several factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, the age, background, and prospects of rehabilitation of the offender, and the overall societal interest.”
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court acknowledged that delay by itself does not automatically benefit a convict. However, it issued a pointed reminder of ground realities within the criminal justice system and recorded,
“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.”
The High Court revisited the factual findings of the trial court, noting that the incident was not premeditated. The appellant had inflicted blows during a quarrel when the deceased intervened, and the victim succumbed after four days. The trial court had already found that there was no medical evidence of a depressed skull fracture and that the occurrence arose in the heat of the moment. These aspects, coupled with the appellant being a woman who had endured a prolonged trial, were treated as relevant mitigating circumstances.
The Court also traced the appellant's custodial history, noting her arrest and release on bail in 1979, her custody after conviction in 2009, and subsequent release on bail by the High Court. It was further recorded that at the stage of admission of appeal, the appellant had even expressed willingness not to challenge the conviction and had sought consideration for probation, though the State never pursued its stated intention to file an appeal.
In a decisive and concluding observation, Justice Parihar held,
“Sentencing, in the present context, must focus on reform and rehabilitation, enabling the offender to realize the wrong committed.”
Taking into account that the offence was committed without premeditation, that the appellant had undergone incarceration and the ordeal of criminal proceedings for over forty-six years, and that she was now about seventy years old with age-related infirmities, the Court reached the final conclusion and remarked,
“No useful purpose would be served by maintaining the substantive sentence.”
Accordingly, noting that no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 304-II RPC, the High Court ordered that the sentence be treated as already undergone, subject to payment of a fine of ₹5,000, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment, thereby finally closing a criminal case.
Case Title: Shameema Begum Vs PS Bijhama
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (JKL)