Mere Protraction Of Trial Or Delay In Hearing Of Appeal By Itself Not Ground To Reduce Sentence: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed mere protraction of trial or delay in deciding the appeal cannot be considered as a valid reason for reducing the sentence, especially when the appellant has been granted interim bail during the appeal process.

A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has while referring to Stat of Rajasthan vs. Banwari Lal and another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357 observed,

"...Mere protraction in trial or delay in decision of the appeal cannot be a ground for reducing the sentence, particularly when during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has been admitted to interim bail in terms of order dated 08.11.2016 and he continues to be on bail as on today."

Justice Dhar was hearing an appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby the appellant had been convicted of offence under Section 304 Part II of RPC and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh.

Without intending to challenge the judgment of conviction, the appellant submitted he was only aggrieved of the quantum of sentence awarded by trial court without giving any cogent reasons. It was submitted that the occurrence had taken place more than 11 years ago and the appellant had faced trial for about 4 years. Thereafter, the appeal was kept pending for more than 6 years. According to petitioner's counsel, these factors constituted ground to reduce the sentence.

It was thus urged that sentence be reduced to period already undergone in custody and fine amount be reconsidered as appellant was a teacher working in a private school earning a meager salary.

Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the act of the appellant has resulted in death of a young boy and having regard to the gravity of the crime, the impugned sentence does not deserve to be interfered with.

At the outset, the bench noted that maximum punishment for offence under Section 304 Part-II of RPC may extend to ten years, with without fine. It observed that the the appellant has been convicted of causing death of a young student who must have been the only hope of his parents, and thus, his case did not warrant much leniency in the matter of imposing sentence. It said the trial court had been considerate enough in not awarding maximum.

Further dealing with the fine amount, the bench found the same was not excessive in view of his social and economic background.

In view of the said legal position the bench declined interference with the conviction of the appellant and directed him to surrender before the trial court within a period of fifteen days for serving the balance sentence.

Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Ganai Vs State of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 123

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement