Citing Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Delhi High Court Reduces Sentence Awarded To Five JeM Members From Life Imprisonment To 10 Years
Citing Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky's quote from the book “Crime and Punishment”, the Delhi High Court on Monday modified and reduced the sentence awarded to five members of terror organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed(JeM) from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 121A of Indian Penal Code. A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh...
Citing Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky's quote from the book “Crime and Punishment”, the Delhi High Court on Monday modified and reduced the sentence awarded to five members of terror organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed(JeM) from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 121A of Indian Penal Code.
A division bench comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain disposed of the appeals moved by Bilal Ahmad Mir, Sajjad Ahmad Khan, Muzzaffar Ahmad Bhat, Mehraj- ud-Din Chopan and Ishfaq Ahmad Bhatt challenging the trial court order awarding them life sentence.
The bench also modified the sentence awarded to Ishfaq Ahmad Bhatt from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 23 of UAPA.
“The man who has a conscience suffers whilst acknowledging his sin. We refer to a quote by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the author of „Crime and Punishment‟ and in chapter 19, Dostoevsky writes that "if he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake; that will be punishment — as well as the prison",” the court said.
The five men were convicted for various offences under IPC and UAPA by the trial court in 2022. They all pleaded guilty. They were sentenced on November 28, 2022.
It was the NIA's case that they were highly radicalised Over Ground Workers of Jaish-e Mohammed which had carried out several terrorist acts in India.
The bench observed that there was no doubt that the nature of the allegations was serious and alarming and gravity of the offences cannot be undermined. However, it added, there was no charge that they had committed any terror act.
“They have been held guilty, primarily, for conspiring, and not for committing any terror act as such. Indubitably, while deciding the quantum, court is required to strike a balance,” the bench said.
It added that it will be hazardous to assume that the convicts, merely because of their despicable past, have no future. They do need to be given „a ray of hope‟, the court said.
“There is nothing on record which may suggest that they are beyond redemption. India has shown enough of progression in all spheres and our justice delivery system is no exception. It also strongly believes that, more often than not, the eventual consequence of any penal sanction should be to reform any individual, instead of shutting him out by putting him inside for life,” the court said.
It added: “Unfortunately, there are no sentencing guidelines which may assist court in selecting the most appropriate sentence, minimum or maximum or one falling between the two. Therefore, at times, there is no uniformity. This is also because of the reason that the facts of any two cases would never be same and similar.”
Furthermore, the bench said though the convicts did not deserve any unjustifiable leniency, at the same time, considering their candid confession at first opportunity, their relatively clean antecedents, inclination of reformation and their young age, the life sentence was not warranted either.
It added that the trial court got swayed by the enormity of allegations and did not give due importance to the fact that the convicts were remorseful and had pleaded guilty at first available opportunity.
“Considering the same, coupled with their young age and the fact that they don‟t have any other conviction to their credit, the approach of the learned Trial Court should have been rather that of reforming them which it even noted in the impugned judgment, albeit, not translated into reality, and, therefore, it is a fit case where the sentence awarded under Section 121A IPC and Section 23 UAPA needs to be reduced,” the court said.
Counsel for Appellants: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwath Sitaraman, Ms. Bedotroyi Gupta and Ms. Stuti Rai, Mr. Kunal Malik, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Gautam Narayan, SPP with Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocate and Ms. Zeenat Malik, PP, Mr. Harshit Goel, Mr. K.V. Vibu Prasad, Advocates
Title: BILAL AHMAD MIR ALIAS BILAL MIR ALIAS BILLA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY NEW DELHI and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 610