Justice IS Mehta of the Delhi High Court has disposed of around eight criminal appeals by affirming convictions but by modifying the sentence to the sentence already undergone.
Though the crimes and facts of each cases were different, the reasons for modifying the sentence in all these cases are similar viz. the young man, sole bread earner of his family and who has to look after his old-aged parents, has realized the mistake committed by him, is remorseful of his act to the society to which he belongs, wants to transform himself as well as to the society to a right direction, and should be given a chance to reform himself and his better contribution in the society to which he belongs.
In all these cases, the judge has referred the Supreme Court judgment in BG Goswami vs Delhi Administration. The appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 395/365/323/304(II)/308/307.
In most of the cases, the finding of conviction was not seriously challenged by the counsel appearing for the accused. In some of the cases, the accused underwent around two years’ imprisonment and in some other cases, they had undergone 5-6 years. Almost every accused in these cases were young and aged under 30.
In BG Goswami case, the apex court observed thus: “Reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal.”
Read the Judgments here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.